2015 (9) TMI 623 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of penalty for abetment - allegation of diverting and illicitly clearing the raw materials procured duty free and their finished product in DTA by resorting to under-valuation - Held that - appellant is a 100% EOU. They supplied the raw materials to the main noticee under the cover of CT3 certificate after observance of the procedure prescribed under Central Excise Rules 2002. There is no dispute that the main noticee received the raw material supplied by the Appellant. The case of the Revenue is that the main noticee diverted the finished goods in DTA in violation of notification. The Appellant is supplier of raw material, which was received by the main noticee as per procedure prescribed. In such situation, the imposition of penalty on the appellant is unjustified. The penalty imposed on the appellant is not warranted. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant, a 100% EOU, supplied raw materials to the main noticee under a CT3 certificate. The main noticee was found diverting goods unlawfully, leading to the imposition of a penalty on the appellant. The appellant argued lack of involvement in the diversion and challenged the penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the main noticee and imposed a penalty on the appellant. The appellant's defense relied on precedents and procedural compliance under Central Excise Rules.

The Revenue contended that the appellant had knowledge and involvement in the diversion based on contradictory statements. However, the appellant refuted this claim by highlighting discrepancies in the statements. The tribunal examined the records and found that the raw materials supplied by the appellant were indeed received by the main noticee, who unlawfully diverted them. The tribunal emphasized that penalty cannot be imposed solely on assumptions without concrete evidence of the appellant's involvement in the diversion.

Referring to a similar case, the tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, emphasizing that the appellant's supply of materials against legal documents did not warrant penalty. The tribunal concluded that there was no justification for penalizing the appellant and allowed the appeal, overturning the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the imposition of a penalty on the appellant for alleged involvement in the diversion of raw materials by the main noticee. The tribunal found no concrete evidence implicating the appellant in the diversion and set aside the penalty, emphasizing the lack of justification for penalizing the appellant based on assumptions.