2017 (1) TMI 1071 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - excisable goods i.e. printed laminated plastic packaging film in pouch or in roll, which appeared to have been removed by M/s. Poysha without payment of Excise duty - penalty u/r 26 - Held that - on perusal of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, it is clear that a person who is dealing in any manner with goods liable for confiscation is liable to be penalized under the said rule 26. It is admitted fact on record that both the appellants have procured the goods on which Excise duty was evaded. Therefore, I do not find any strength in the argument putforth by the learned counsel for the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal upholding findings of Original Authority
- Allegations of abetment for evasion of Central Excise duty
- Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal upholding the findings of the Original Authority. The case involved a show cause notice issued to a company, calling for payment of Central Excise duty and confiscation of excisable goods. The notice also alleged that other appellants received the goods without paying the duty, leading to penalties being imposed on them under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Order-in-Original imposed penalties on the appellants, which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 23.12.2014, leading to the appellants approaching the Tribunal for redressal.

2. The main contention raised during the hearing was that the appellants were alleged to have abetted the evasion of Central Excise duty by another company, and therefore, penalties under Rule 26 should not be applicable. The Department, however, supported the Order-in-Original. Upon considering the arguments and examining Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, it was established that any person dealing with goods liable for confiscation is subject to penalties under the said rule. Since it was confirmed that both appellants had received goods on which Excise duty was evaded, the argument put forth by the appellant's counsel was deemed insufficient. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal, through Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical), pronounced the judgment in the open court, upholding the penalties imposed on the appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The decision was based on the clear provisions of the rule and the established facts of the case, where the appellants were found to have procured goods on which Excise duty had been evaded, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.