9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 557 - HC - Central ExcisePenalty on the Director for the Assessee Company Rule 26 or Rule 27 Held that - As no excisable goods are confiscated and the offence alleged against these respondents are negligence, therefore, the said offence does not fall under Rule 26 of the Excise Rules - liable to pay Rs. 5,000 - penalty as ordered by the Tribunal against revenue.
Issues:
- Challenge to penalty imposition under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Applicability of Rule 26 and Rule 27 in penalty determination Analysis: The appeal before the High Court challenged the penalty imposition under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, contending that the penalty should only be payable under Rule 27, amounting to Rs. 5,000. The case involved discrepancies in payment claimed by the assessee, leading to a penalty imposition by the adjudicating authority on the Director and Finance Controller. The Tribunal, however, set aside the penalty under Rule 26 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 each under Rule 27. The Revenue appealed against this decision. In the judgment, the Court analyzed the provisions of Rule 26 and Rule 27. Rule 26 pertains to penalties for specific offenses related to excisable goods liable for confiscation, while Rule 27 covers general penalties for breaches of rules. The Court highlighted that for Rule 26 to apply, there must be excisable goods liable for confiscation, which was not the case in the present matter. The offense in question was the lack of diligence in ensuring the encashment of cheques for excise duty payment, falling outside the scope of Rule 26. Therefore, the Court concluded that since the offense did not align with Rule 26, Rule 27 was applicable, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000 as determined by the Tribunal. The judgment emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was in accordance with the law, and no substantial question of law merited interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the penalty under Rule 27. The application for stay was also dismissed accordingly.
|
