2014 (4) TMI 499 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty under the provision of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Assessee abated in clearance of the Cigarettes under the guise of Cigar and correct duty was not discharged - Held that - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Penalties imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for abating in clearance of Cigarettes under the guise of Cigar.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses multiple Stay Petitions arising from the same impugned order regarding penalties imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for abating in clearance of Cigarettes under the guise of Cigar. The adjudicating authority had imposed penalties on the appellants based on this ground.

In the case of appellants who were employees of a company, the main appellant had already complied with the direction to deposit a specific amount. It was decided that these employees need not be directed to pre-deposit any further amount. Therefore, their applications for waiver of pre-deposit were allowed, and the recovery was stayed pending the disposal of appeals.

Regarding a Stay Petition filed by a Director of a company, it was noted that the director did not appear before the adjudicating authority or file any reply to the Show Cause Notice. Due to this lack of interest in pursuing the case on merit, the director was directed to deposit a specific amount within a specified period. Compliance with this directive would result in the waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amounts involved, with the recovery stayed until the appeal's disposal.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance and active participation in the legal proceedings, as demonstrated by the different outcomes for employees of a company and a director who failed to engage in the process. The decision-making process was guided by the need to ensure fair consideration of the evidence on record and the roles of the individuals involved in the alleged abatement in the clearance of Cigarettes under the guise of Cigar. Compliance with the directives regarding pre-deposit was crucial for the stay of recovery pending the appeal's resolution.