2014 (1) TMI 519 - AT - Central Excise

Aiding and abetting the sale and purchase of chakdo rickshaws - Waiver of Pre-deposit of Penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 Held that - There is a finding recorded by the adjudicating authority that the appellants had collected cash on behalf of the manufacturers over and above the invoice value, which would indicate that they were aware that the amount which has been collected, no duty is discharged by manufacturers - the chakdo rickshaws are registered by the appellants with the RTO based upon the documents which has been given to them by manufacturer and each indicates that assessee s invoice of the sale of the chakdo rickshaws - the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000 as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved:
Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Penalties imposed on the appellants under Rule 26

The penalties were imposed on the appellants for aiding and abetting the sale and purchase of chakdo rickshaws on which appropriate central excise duty was not paid. The appellants sought the waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount through stay petitions.

Issue 2: Arguments presented by both sides

The appellant's counsel argued that the appellants were only RTO agents and not engaged in the purchase and sale of the chakdo rickshaws, which led to the duty liability. They highlighted that the appellants possessed RTO agent registration and necessary forms indicating the sale of the rickshaws. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (D.R.) pointed out statements suggesting the appellants' involvement in cash collection and dealing with the sale and purchase of duty-evaded rickshaws.

Issue 3: Adjudication of the role played by the appellants

After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found that the role played by the appellants was not clear and required detailed examination concerning the findings of the adjudicating authority. It was noted that the appellants had collected cash on behalf of manufacturers, indicating awareness of duty evasion. However, the registration of the rickshaws with the RTO based on manufacturer-provided documents raised questions about the appellants' involvement.

Issue 4: Decision and directions of the Tribunal

The Tribunal directed both appellants to deposit Rs.25,000 each within eight weeks and report compliance before the Deputy Registrar. The compliance report would be reviewed, and further orders would be passed accordingly. Subject to compliance, the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the remaining penalty amounts were allowed, and recovery stayed pending the appeal's disposal.

This judgment highlights the importance of a detailed examination of the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in cases of duty evasion. The Tribunal's decision to require a deposit from the appellants while allowing the waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining penalty amounts demonstrates a balanced approach to ensure compliance and fairness in the adjudication process.