2021 (12) TMI 733 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of penalty u/r 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - clandestine clearance of M.S. ingots - HELD THAT - The penalty of ₹ 4,00,000/- has been imposed on the company in which the appellant was Director and ₹ 3,00,000/- has been imposed on the appellant - the ends of justice will be met if the penalty imposed on the appellant is reduced from ₹ 3,00,000/- to ₹ 1,00,000/-. The appeal is partially allowed reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 from ₹ 3,00,000/- to ₹ 1,00,000/-.

Summary

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

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against an Order-in-Appeal upholding a penalty of ?3,00,000 imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The case involved clandestine clearance of M.S. ingots by M/s. Ramdas Ispat & Metals Pvt. Ltd. (RIMPL), with one of the recipients being M/s. Rutuja Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (RIPL), where the appellant was a director. While no other person appealed, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appellant's appeal, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted multiple adjournments due to the appellant's non-appearance, eventually requiring the counsel to proceed with the argument. The Authorized Representative reiterated the lower authorities' findings supporting the penalty imposition on the appellant. Upon considering the impugned order, submissions, and arguments, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, referencing the appellant's involvement as a director in paying cash to RIMPL for clandestinely cleared goods.

The Commissioner (Appeals) had observed the appellant's failure to counter the findings regarding cash payments for clandestinely cleared ingots. The penalty was imposed under Rule 26, which addresses penalties for certain offenses related to excisable goods. Notably, the appellant's plea that he did not personally handle the goods was deemed illogical and unacceptable. The Tribunal reduced the penalty on the appellant from ?3,00,000 to ?1,00,000, considering the overall circumstances.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 from ?3,00,000 to ?1,00,000.