2006 (12) TMI 369 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Penalties imposed on the appellants for involvement in fraud related to Customs Duty free imports of raw materials meant for export production.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to stay applications concerning penalties imposed on the appellants for their involvement in a fraud scheme. The case revolves around Customs Duty free imports of raw materials intended for export production, falsely shown as supplied to one of the appellants without payment of duty. Investigations revealed that the imported materials were sold in the market instead of being used for production. The appellants, including M/s. G.N. Rubber Tech Pvt. Ltd., were found to have played a significant role in the fraud by issuing false documents, entering fake receipts, and issuing cheques for goods not purchased. The impugned order detailed the involvement of each appellant, with admissions made during investigations.

The main contention raised was regarding the sustainability of the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants argued that since they did not physically handle the goods, the penalty was not justified. They contended that "dealing with the goods" should involve physical actions like receiving or transporting the goods. However, the learned SDR argued that the appellants' actions fell within the provision of "in any other manner deals with the goods," as per Rule 26.

The Tribunal analyzed Rule 26, which imposes penalties for various offenses related to excisable goods. The rule covers actions such as transporting, selling, purchasing, or dealing with goods in any other manner. The appellants' involvement in remitting cash collection to the main perpetrator through cheques was considered part of "selling" under the rule. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' actions, including providing false documents and making false entries, clearly fell within the scope of "dealing with the goods" as per the rule.

Based on the evidence and legal interpretation, the Tribunal found no justification for waiving the pre-deposits. M/s. G.N. Rubber Tech Pvt. Ltd. was directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs out of the total penalty imposed. The other appellants were instructed to make full deposits due to the smaller penalties imposed on them. Failure to deposit the amounts within 8 weeks would result in the dismissal of the appeals. The Tribunal scheduled a compliance reporting date and disposed of all stay applications accordingly.