Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (8) TMI 313

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these Rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times of the value of such goods or Rs.5,000/-, whichever is greater. There is merit in the contention of the Appellant. Penalty under Rule 209A, which is akin to Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable only on an individual and not on a Firm, as held by the Tribunal, Kolkata in the case of WOODMEN INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA [ 2003 (9) TMI 228 - CESTAT, KOLKATA] - In the case of ADITYA STEEL INDUSTRIES V .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e was actually having a capacity of 6 M.T, by oversight they paid duty of a 4 M.T induction Furnace and cleared the same on payment of appropriate duty. The Appellant contended that they have detected the mistake on 21.01.2018 and paid the differential duty along with interest and intimated the Range superintendent on 05.03.1998, before issuance of the SCN. The department has alleged that the Appellant had abetted the evasion of central excise duty by M/s. SPS Metal Cast and Alloys (P) Ltd and demanded penalty on them under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in the Notice. While adjudicating the case, the adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- on the Appellant. The Appellant has filed the present appeal ag .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lesser amount of duty under the compound levy system. The appellants submits that since the matter was regularized by them by payment of differential duty and it was sheer case of inadvertence that instead of sending induction furnace of 4 M.T. capacity, 6 M.T. capacity of induction furnaces supplied first and then 4 M.T. capacity furnace was supplied instead of 6 M.T. furnace supplied later. It has to be accepted as a case of sheer inadvertence. Regarding the allegation that the capacity of induction furnace was 7 M.T. instead of 6 M.T, they stated that it has not been mentioned as to how the capacity has been determined. A gap always remained at the top so that the metal does not over flow. So extra space is always kept in a furnace for s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appellant. Penalty under Rule 209A, which is akin to Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable only on an individual and not on a Firm, as held by the Tribunal, Kolkata in the case of Woodmen Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna, reported in 2004 (164) ELT 339, the relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: 9. Coming to the appeal of the other appellants viz. the buyer of the goods (M/s. Kitply Industries Ltd.) when the allegations against the main appellants have not been brought home, the penalty imposed on this appellant for abetment is not sustainable. Further, penalty on this appellant has been imposed under Rule 26 of the C.E. Rules (erstwhile Rule 209A). The said rule permits imposition of pen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that there was any coercion or threat. In view of this, I hold that they are liable to penalty and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- cannot be considered as excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. So far as redemption fine of [Rs.] 8,000 on the truck is concerned, the truck was admittedly used for clandestine removal of the goods and therefore, truck is liable to confiscation. However, the redemption fine on the truck is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine on the goods which are confiscable as held by the lower authority and which I agree with for the reasons set out in his order cannot be considered excessive and the same is confirmed in entirely. So far as impo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates