9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1145 - AT - Central ExcisePersonal Penalty - scope of rule 15 of CCR 2004 - whether personal penalty on the appellants who were at the relevant time employees of company is sustainable u/r 15 of CCR 2004? - Held that - A plain reading of the Rule 15 of CCR 2004 reveals that it consists of five sub-rules for different situations and none of these sub-rules directs imposition of personal penalty on the employees of an erring assessee under the said rule - It is a settle principles of law that penal provisions need strict interpretation and a person could only be able to defend his case only when the particular provision under which he is proposed to be penalized is mentioned in the notice itself - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Imposition of personal penalty under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 on employees. 2. Applicability of penalty provisions to employees without specific mention in notice. 3. Interpretation of penal provisions and strict adherence to notice requirements. Analysis: Issue 1: Imposition of personal penalty under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 on employees. The case involved appeals against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax, concerning the imposition of personal penalties on the appellants who were employees of a company. The demand was confirmed against the company with penalties under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004, and personal penalties of ?5,00,000/- each on the appellants. The appellant's representative argued that the personal penalties were not sustainable in law, citing relevant legal precedents. The Revenue's representative contended that even if the Rule was incorrectly mentioned in the show cause notice (SCN), it did not absolve the appellants of liability. The Tribunal examined the arguments and relevant provisions to determine the sustainability of personal penalties on employees. Issue 2: Applicability of penalty provisions to employees without specific mention in notice. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 15 of CCR, 2004, which outlines penalties for contraventions related to CENVAT credit. It noted that the rule did not explicitly provide for imposing personal penalties on employees of an erring assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of strict interpretation of penal provisions and the necessity for the specific mention of the relevant provision in the notice to enable the defense against penalties. The Tribunal found that the notice and order did not specify the sub-rule under which the appellants were being penalized, highlighting the procedural requirement for clarity in penal actions against individuals. Issue 3: Interpretation of penal provisions and strict adherence to notice requirements. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and emphasized the need for adherence to procedural fairness and legal principles in imposing penalties. It observed that penal provisions must be strictly interpreted, and individuals should be informed of the specific rule under which penalties are proposed. The Tribunal concluded that in the absence of a clear mention of the applicable sub-rule in the notice or order, the imposition of personal penalties on the appellants under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 was not sustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside concerning the personal penalties on the appellants, and the appeals were allowed. This detailed analysis of the issues involved in the legal judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the Tribunal's decision regarding the imposition of personal penalties on employees under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004, emphasizing procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in penal actions.
|
