Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1127 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of penalty u/r 26(2)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - vague SCN - It is alleged that goods delivered to the person other than the assessee has been admitted by the transporters in their respective statement - HELD THAT - The impugned orders do not assign any specific act of contravention of the Central Excise Rules to the appellant. Commissioner has recorded that the appellant has submitted before him that they were no way concerned about the invoices or the material. Nothing has been said in the orders whereby it can be said that the appellant was acting beyond the normal business acts in transportation of the goods. There are no merits in imposition of penalties on the appellant. The same are set aside - Appeals are allowed in respect of transporter appellant.
Issues involved: Imposition of penalties on the transporter under Rule 26(2)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Summary: Issue 1: Imposition of penalties on the transporter under Rule 26(2)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 The appeals were directed against Order-in-Original No. 05/CEX/2012 and Order-in-Original No. 06/CEX/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik, imposing penalties on the transporter. The Commissioner found that the transporter allowed a broker to take possession of the material instead of delivering it to the designated places, which was a serious breach of trust and deviation from the normal course of business. The transporter defended themselves by claiming they acted at the behest of the broker and were not concerned about the invoices or material. However, the Tribunal observed that the impugned orders did not specify any contravention of the Central Excise Rules by the transporter. It was noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the transporter acted beyond normal business practices in transporting the goods. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the imposition of penalties on the transporter and set them aside, allowing the appeals in favor of the transporter. (Order pronounced in the open court)
|