9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 497 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of personal penalty on the director under Rule 26 of CER - short payment of duty - appellant is a co-noticee and the main noticee i.e. Company M/s. Span Nihon Kohden Diagnostics Private Limited has settled their case under SVLDR Scheme - HELD THAT - The penalty on the appellant being the director of the company was imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in connection with the case of short payment of duty by M/s. Span Nihon Kohden Diagnostics Private Limited. It is found that the case against the main notice i.e., the company is related to valuation of the goods. The allegation against the company is that the company has not paid the duty correctly and the goods were sold to the related person. The issue of valuation is based on the strict interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and the rules made thereunder. However, the appellant under a belief that since the goods are sold, duty is paid on the transaction value, for the clearance of goods proper invoices were raised, therefore, there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant s company. The case is based on only interpretation of valuation provision of Central Excise. Therefore, it cannot be said that the director of the company has any mala fide intention. In this fact, the personal penalty on the director is not correct and legal. The penalty under Rule 26 is set aside and appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the confirmation of demand of excise duty against a company for undervaluing goods cleared to a related party, imposition of personal penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the director of the company, and the appeal against the penalty. Confirmation of Demand of Excise Duty: The appeal was directed against an Order-In-Original confirming the demand of excise duty against the company for undervaluing goods cleared to a related party. The Commissioner confirmed the demand on the ground that the goods were undervalued and cleared to a related party, leading to short payment of duty. The personal penalty under Rule 26 was imposed on the director of the company. The appellant challenged this order by filing the present appeal. Imposition of Personal Penalty: The appellant argued that as a co-noticee, and with the main noticee having settled their case under SVLDR Scheme, the penalty on the co-noticee should not be sustained. It was contended that there was no mens rea and the goods were not liable for confiscation, therefore the penalty under Rule 26 was not maintainable. The appellant cited various judgments to support this argument. The learned Counsel emphasized that there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant's company, and the case revolved around the interpretation of the valuation provision of Central Excise. Judgment and Decision: After considering the submissions from both sides and perusing the records, the Tribunal found that the penalty imposed on the director under Rule 26 was not correct and legal. It was noted that the case against the company was related to the valuation of goods, and the issue stemmed from the interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Since the goods were sold and duty was paid on the transaction value with proper invoices raised, there was no mala fide intention on the part of the director. The Tribunal concluded that the personal penalty on the director was not justified, and accordingly, the penalty under Rule 26 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Separate Judgment: The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 08.02.2024 by Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad.
|
