2015 (9) TMI 1379 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 - Purchase of clandestinely cleared goods - Held that - it is an admitted position that incriminating documents were recovered from the appellant s office in Mumbai, which indicated that the appellant has purchased clandestinely cleared goods from the manufacturer. In his statement, both the manufacturers and brokers have admitted the position. - penalty imposed is in order. Further, penalty imposed is not on the higher side - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 based on recovery of incriminating documents indicating clandestinely cleared goods purchase.

Analysis:
1. Imposition of Penalty: The appellant filed three appeals against the penalty of Rs. 50,000 each under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. Incriminating documents recovered from the appellant's office revealed clandestinely cleared purchases of goods. Statements from involved parties confirmed the purchases. Duty demands were raised against manufacturers, with penalties proposed against the appellant.

2. Appeals and Settlement: Two appeals saw manufacturers paying the duty, interest, and 25% of penalties as per Section 11A(1A), leading to their closure. Citing a Tribunal judgment, the appellant argued against the penalty imposition. In the third appeal, although payments were made, doubts lingered on the complete settlement within the stipulated time.

3. Contentions: The Additional Commissioner argued that due to the appellant's involvement in purchasing clandestinely cleared goods without duty payment, the penalty was justified and not excessive.

4. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal referred to a judgment regarding the interpretation of Section 11A(1A) and (2), emphasizing the coverage of co-noticees linked to contraventions of excise rules. The judgment highlighted settlement provisions and the intention to resolve tax disputes promptly. The Tribunal allowed the appeals where settlements were made but dismissed the appeal where full payment was not completed.

5. Merit of Penalty: Given the recovery of incriminating documents and admissions, the imposed penalty was deemed appropriate and not excessive. Consequently, the appeal where settlements were made was allowed, while the appeal with incomplete payment was dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies surrounding penalty imposition in cases involving clandestinely cleared goods purchases and the significance of timely settlements in excise duty disputes.