2018 (7) TMI 1204 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty u/r 26 of CER - Clandestine removal - goods cleared clandestinely from Noida unit mischievously showing as cleared from Haridwar (UK) - whether penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 is rightly imposed on the appellant? - Held that - The Courts below have rightly held that the appellant a limited company have knowingly misled the said M/s Dynasty and have received the job worked goods although dutiable without payment of duty - Evidently the appellant was aware that the job work is being done by M/s Dynasty Noida UP and such goods were dutiable whereas the appellant indulged in falsification of records in connivance with the said M/s Dynasty Noida which issued challans as if the goods have been job worked at Haridwar (UK). Impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

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

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of electrical products, availed area-based exemption from Excise duty under Notification No.50/2003-CE. They engaged another manufacturer, M/s Dynasty India Pvt. Ltd., for job work involving copper wires. The revenue found discrepancies in the records, indicating that M/s Dynasty, Noida, where the job work was carried out, did not pay Central Excise duty on the manufactured goods. Consequently, penalties were proposed on both M/s Dynasty and the appellant under Rule 26 of CER, 2002. The Additional Commissioner imposed penalties on both parties, holding the appellant responsible for knowingly receiving dutiable goods without payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the decision, emphasizing that the appellant facilitated Excise duty evasion by accepting goods without valid duty-paying documents.

The appellant contended that they did not operate under the scheme of Notification No.214/86-CE and should not be penalized under Rule 26. They argued that the penalty should only apply when goods are liable for confiscation, which was not proposed or ordered in this case. The appellant cited precedents and rulings to support their arguments. However, the Tribunal upheld the lower court's decision, stating that the appellant knowingly received dutiable goods without paying duty, misleading M/s Dynasty and falsifying records to evade Excise duty. The Tribunal found no irregularity in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the penalties imposed on both M/s Dynasty and the appellant under Rule 26 of CER, 2002 for their involvement in Excise duty evasion through falsification of records and receipt of dutiable goods without payment of duty. The appellant's arguments regarding Notification No.214/86-CE and the absence of confiscation proposals were rejected, upholding the lower court's decision.