9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik, wherein the following has been held in respect of appellant before us:- Order-in-Original No. 05/CEX/2012 dated 28.09.2012 "(vi) I impose penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) on M/s. Supreme Freight & Carriers, Malegaon, noticee No.4 under Rule 26(2)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 2002." Order-in-Original No. 06/CEX/2012 dated 10.10.2012 "(vi) I impose penalty of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Fifty Thousand only) on M/s. Supreme Freight & Carriers, Malegaon, noticee No.4 under Rule 26(2)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 2002." 2.1 For imposing penalty on the appellant, Commissioner vide Orders-in-Original respectively as follows:- "36.2 M/s Suhel Roadlines, Malegaon and M/s Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e person other than the assessee has been admitted by the transporters in their respective statement. I consider these acts on the part of the transporters as being not only unsavory deviation from normal course of business but also a serious breach of trust in defiance of law. The offence committed by them has been admitted by the said transporters in their respective statements. I therefore hold that penalty under Rule 26 (2)00 of CER 2002 is imposable against these transporters." "36.4 M/s Suhel Roadlines, Malegaon and M/s Supreme Freight & Carriers, Malegaon, both transporters are co-noticees in the instant case against whom penal provision under Rule 26 of CER 2002 has been invoked. M/s Supreme Freight & Carriers, Malegaon, in their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f business but also a serious breach of trust in defiance of law. The offence committed by them has been admitted by the said transporters in their respective statements. I therefore hold that penalty under Rule 26 (2)(i) of CER 2002 is imposable against these transporters." 3.1 We have heard Shri Viraj Reshamwala, Advocate for the appellant and Shri P.K. Acharya, Superintendent, Authorised Representative for the Revenue. 3.2 We find that the impugned orders do not assign any specific act of contravention of the Central Excise Rules to the appellant. Commissioner has recorded that the appellant has submitted before him that they were no way concerned about the invoices or the material. Nothing has been said in the orders whereby it can b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
