2017 (10) TMI 1032 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty u/r 26 of CER, 2002 - it was alleged that the appellant is involved in the purchasing of clandestinely removed goods supplied by M/s. MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. - Held that - The clandestinely removed goods were admittedly received by the appellant therefore the appellant was aware about the clandestine nature of the goods. Hence he has aided and abeted to evasion of duty made by M/s. MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. - penalty upheld, however the quantum of penalty reduced - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for involvement in purchasing clandestinely removed goods.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the imposition of a penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellant for being involved in purchasing clandestinely removed goods supplied by a specific company. The appellant did not appear despite notice. The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, argued that the appellant was aware of the goods being cleared without payment of duty and, therefore, liable for confiscation. The Judicial Member carefully considered the submissions and records. It was established that the goods were clandestinely removed and received by the appellant, making them aware of the nature of the goods and aiding in the evasion of duty. The Judicial Member referred to specific statements by involved parties confirming the receipt of non-duty paid goods and the payment made in cash. The Commissioner had imposed a penalty of ?5,00,000, which was considered excessive given the total duty amount involved. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to ?2,00,000, and the appeal was partly allowed based on the circumstances and admissions made by the appellant regarding the liability for confiscation of the goods.