2014 (8) TMI 289 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of goods - Levy of penalty under Rule 25 on the appellant - Levy of penalty on the director of company under Rule 26 - of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that - M/s. Rajvi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., Surat clandestinely cleared and sold the goods to the main appellant without any documentation, is not doubted. This fact has not been denied by the main appellant. In this regard, it is relevant to glance through the provisions contained in Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - From the language of the above Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, it is apparent that the same is applicable to a producer, manufacturer, registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer who contravenes any of the provisions of these rules when intent to evade payment of duty. In the present case, the main appellant has not contravened any provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with intent to evade payment of duty. POY purchased by the main appellant were not the goods manufactured by the main appellant much less with any intent to evade payment of central excise duty. As the main appellant is not the manufacturer of the goods, therefore, it is held that penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be imposed upon the main appellant for goods not manufactured by him and penalty imposed under Section 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is accordingly set aside. - Decided in favor of assessee. Penalty on director - Held that - Shri Pankesh S. Patel, Director of the main appellant is representing the unit registered with the central excise department and was aware that the goods (POY) purchased by them were without any invoice and without payment of central excise duty. Being representative of a registered unit, he has to be aware of the central excise procedures and law. It cannot be said that he was not aware that the goods purchased by them were not liable to confiscation under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 2002. - He has been rightly visited with penalty under the Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - penalty reduced to ₹ 50,000/- - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the main appellant and the Director.

Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty on Main Appellant:
The case involved penalties imposed on the main appellant and its Director for receiving and dealing with goods without payment of duty and documentation. The main appellant argued that penalty under Rule 25 cannot be imposed as they did not contravene any provisions with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal examined Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which applies to contraventions with intent to evade duty by producers, manufacturers, or registered dealers. Since the main appellant did not manufacture the goods and did not contravene any rules to evade duty, the penalty under Rule 25 was set aside.

2. Imposition of Penalty on Director:
Regarding the penalty on the Director, it was argued that there was no mention of goods being liable for confiscation in the proceedings. The Revenue contended that the Director should be aware of the duty status of purchased goods. The Tribunal found that the Director was aware that the goods were purchased without duty payment and documentation. As a representative of a registered unit, he should have known the central excise procedures. Thus, the penalty under Rule 26 was upheld, but reduced to Rs. 50,000 considering the circumstances. The Director's appeal was partially allowed, reducing the penalty imposed.

3. Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that penalties under Rule 25 could not be imposed on the main appellant as they did not contravene rules with intent to evade duty. However, the Director was rightly penalized under Rule 26 for being aware of the non-duty paid nature of purchased goods. The penalties were adjusted accordingly, with the Director's penalty reduced to Rs. 50,000. The appeals by the appellants were disposed of based on the above decisions.