TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Kamdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Indore (Noticee No. 3) E/1997/2002 Rs. 25 lakhs Sh. Keshavan Nair Authorised Signatory of the above Company (Noticee No. 6) E/1998/2002 Rs. 50,000/- Sh Vishal Agarwal, Prop., Vishal Transport Service, Indore (Noticee No. 10) E/1999/2002 Rs. 50,000/- Vishal Transport Service, Indore (Noticee No. 9) E/2000/2002 Rs. 50 lakhs M/s. Yash Marketing Co., Indore (Noticee No. 4) E/2458/2002 Rs. 25 lakhs Sh. Paras Vora, Yash Marketing Co., Indore (Noticee No. 7) E/2459/2002 Rs. 50,000/- Sh. Ajit Singh Bhatia, Bhatia Agencies, Indore (Noticee No. 8) E/2186/2002 Rs. 50,000/- M/s. Bhatia Agenci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Advocate, representing the appellants in Appeal Nos. 2458 and 2459, argued that a penalty under Rule 209A could be validly imposed on any person only if it was found, on the basis of reliable evidence, that he had physically dealt with any excisable goods, knowing or believing that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Central Excise Act or Rules. In support, the learned Counsel cited the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (i) S.R. Foils Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (138) E.L.T. 719 (Tri. - Del.)] (ii) Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Ors. v. CCE [2002 (148) E.L.T. 161 (T) = 2002 (103) ECR 770 (Tri.)] (iii) A.M. Kulkarni Ors. v. CCE [2003 (56) RLT 573 (CEGAT - Mum.)] (iv) Siddarth Agarwal Ors. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nally heard. The SDR reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. 3.1 In Appeal Nos. 1997-2000, we note that there is a challenge to the Commissioner's order on the ground of violation of natural justice. It has been stated that, before the appellants could reply to the show cause notice, the Commissioner passed the order without giving them any hearing. The Commissioner noted in his order that the appellants had neither replied to the show cause notice nor appeared for personal hearing on 29-10-2001 and 30-10-2001. He also noted that the appellants had not in any way responded to the hearing-notice sent from his office. We find that these observations of the adjudicating authority have not been contested in these appeals and, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mean "any other mode of physically dealing with the goods". This position has been recognized in Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. (supra) which has been followed in A.M. Kulkarni (supra). The decision in Ram Nath Singh (supra) is also to the same effect. Any person to be penalized under the above rule should also be shown to have been concerned in physically dealing with excisable goods with the knowledge or belief that the goods are liable to confiscation under the Act/Rules. He should have done the act with mens rea. We have held so in S.R. Foils (supra) and J. Mitra Co. (supra). The decision in Standard Pencils (supra) is also to the same effect. In the instant ease, neither of the essential ingredients of offence under Rule 209A has been show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
