2010 (5) TMI 414 - AT - Central Excise

Sold the goods without payment of excise/customs duty and without invoice - shortage of waste yarn was detected - Proprietor of the unit admitted that imposed penalty - Held that - goods were not available for confiscation but if they were available, definitely they were liable to confiscation Held that - Assessee was aware or had reason to believe that goods are liable to confiscation - penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 has been imposed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on a yarn broker for purchasing goods without payment of excise/customs duty.
2. Applicability of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
3. Reduction of penalty amount under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the imposition of a penalty on Shri Sudhir Jivrajbhai Patel, a yarn broker, for purchasing goods without payment of excise/customs duty. The appellant admitted to purchasing the goods without the cover of an invoice on a cash payment basis, knowingly that the goods were non-duty paid. The penalty was imposed after show cause notice, adjudication, and appellate proceedings.

2. The key issue was the applicability of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Rule 26 provides for penalty on any person who deals with excisable goods that he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation. The appellant, as a yarn broker, was aware that the goods were removed without payment of duty, making them liable to confiscation. The absence of seizure or confiscation does not negate the imposition of penalty under Rule 26.

3. In considering the reduction of the penalty amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the judge acknowledged that the total duty involved was Rs. 2,86,398. A lenient view was taken on the quantum of penalty, leading to a reduction of the penalty imposed on Shri Sudhir Jivrajbhai Patel from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 30,000. The decision was based on the circumstances of the case and the amount of duty involved, ensuring a fair outcome despite upholding the imposition of the penalty.

This judgment highlights the importance of compliance with excise/customs duty regulations, the application of relevant rules for penalties, and the judicial discretion in determining penalty amounts based on the specifics of each case.