9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 635 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre-deposit of demand on account of penalties - under-valuation and clandestine removal - Difference of opinion - Held that - matter referred to larger bench with the following questions Whether in view of the facts of active involvement of M/s Suraj Medical Agencies, Sh. Roshan Lal Kawatra, Sh. Kashmir Chand and Sh. Ashok Kumar in the clandestine manufacture and clearance of medicaments by M/s Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, pre deposit of penalty imposed upon them under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 is demandable as recorded by the Member (Technical). Whether considering the case laws cited by the ld. Advocate Stay is to be granted to M/s Suraj Medical Agencies, Sh. Roshan Lal Kawatra, Sh. Kashmir Chand and Sh. Ashok Kumar as held by the Hon ble Member (Judicial).
Issues Involved:
1. Pre-deposit requirements for penalties imposed. 2. Applicability of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. Legal standing of penalties on firms versus natural persons. 4. Interim relief and legal precedents affecting penalties under Rule 26. Detailed Analysis: Pre-deposit Requirements for Penalties Imposed: The judgment discusses the pre-deposit requirements for penalties imposed on various appellants. The main appellant, M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., was directed to deposit Rs. 1.15 crores. Due to their non-compliance, their appeal was dismissed, and the stay petitions of the present applicants were listed afresh for disposal. The applicants sought to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakh each imposed on M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies and its partners/directors, and Rs. 25 lakh on the Managing Director of M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Applicability of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002: The core issue revolves around the applicability of Rule 26 for imposing penalties. The appellants argued that Rule 26 penalties could not be imposed on firms, citing the Tribunal's decision in Woodmen Industries vs. CCE, Patna, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal had ruled that penalties under Rule 26 could only be imposed on natural persons. Additionally, the Calcutta High Court in Prompt Castings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jt. Commissioner of Central Excise held that Rule 26 is prima facie ultra vires of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Legal Standing of Penalties on Firms Versus Natural Persons: The Tribunal noted that the decision in Woodmen Industries, confirmed by the Supreme Court, supports the view that no penalty can be imposed on a firm under Rule 26. However, the Member (Technical) differed, citing judgments from the Delhi High Court in Sunil Mittal vs. CCE and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in V.K. Enterprises vs. CCE, which held that companies could be penalized under Rule 26. These judgments emphasized that legislative intent did not exonerate corporate bodies from penalties for economic crimes, and penalties could be imposed on both natural and juristic persons. Interim Relief and Legal Precedents Affecting Penalties Under Rule 26: The Tribunal considered interim relief granted by the Calcutta High Court in Prompt Castings Pvt. Ltd., which stayed the operation of penalties under Rule 26. However, the Member (Technical) pointed out that this interim order did not lay down a binding ratio and was operative only until a specified date. The Member (Technical) emphasized that the Delhi High Court's decision in Sunil Mittal and other precedents supported the imposition of penalties on companies and individuals involved in economic offenses. Separate Judgments Delivered: The Tribunal delivered separate judgments. The Member (Judicial) granted interim relief based on the Calcutta High Court's interim order and the precedent set by Woodmen Industries. Conversely, the Member (Technical) held that penalties under Rule 26 were applicable to both natural and juristic persons, citing more recent judgments that supported this view. Consequently, the Member (Technical) directed the appellants to deposit 50% of the penalties imposed to avail the facility to hear the appeals. Conclusion: The Tribunal's judgment addressed multiple legal issues regarding the imposition of penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The divergence in opinions between the Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical) highlighted the complexity of applying Rule 26 to firms versus natural persons. The final directive required the appellants to deposit a portion of the penalties to proceed with their appeals, reflecting a balance between interim relief and safeguarding revenue interests.
|
