9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 639 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - job-work - it was alleged that the Appellant had not followed the procedure as prescribed under Rule 10 of the CERT, 2002, therefore, confiscation under Rule 25 of CER, 2002 has rightly been ordered and imposition of penalty also - Held that - it cannot be said that merely non-following of procedure laid down under Rule 10 CER, 2002 would lead to the inference that these transformers meant to be cleared without payment of duty, in absence of any other evidence and invite harsh action of confiscation of the excess stock found in the premises of the Appellant. Therefore, direction for confiscation of the excess quantity of transformers found the Appellant s premises is set aside. Undisputedly and admittedly, the Appellants have violated the provisions of Rule 10 of CER, 2002 inasmuch as, challans were not prepared and followed other formalities in the movement of transformers. It is required that proper records has to be maintained for movement of the goods and on receipt of the same against proper documents records to be maintained at the recipient s end. Thus, in these circumstances, imposition of penalty on the Appellant is sustainable. However, considering overall circumstances, penalty is reduced to ₹ 2,00,000/-. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
1. Confiscation of excess stock of transformers. 2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. Non-compliance with Rule 10 of CER, 2002. Confiscation of Excess Stock of Transformers: The case involved 306 transformers found in excess during a visit to the Appellant's factory. The Appellant explained that 242 transformers were for testing purposes, and 64 were manufactured on a job work basis due to space constraints. The transformers were serially numbered and intended for clearance to the Government Electricity Board after testing. The tribunal found that the failure to follow Rule 10 of CER, 2002 did not imply an intention to evade duty. Consequently, the direction for confiscation of the excess stock was set aside. Imposition of Penalty under Rule 25: The Appellant was found to have violated Rule 10 of CER, 2002 by not preparing challans and following formalities in the movement of transformers. The tribunal upheld the imposition of a penalty due to this violation. However, considering the circumstances, the penalty was reduced to ?2,00,000. The impugned order was modified accordingly, and the Appeal was partly allowed. Non-Compliance with Rule 10 of CER, 2002: The Appellant's failure to comply with Rule 10 of CER, 2002 regarding the movement of goods led to the imposition of a penalty. Proper records were deemed necessary for the movement and receipt of goods. While the penalty was upheld, it was reduced to ?2,00,000 considering the overall circumstances. The tribunal emphasized the importance of maintaining records for the movement of goods and upheld the penalty on the Appellant for non-compliance with Rule 10. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD addresses the issues of confiscation of excess stock of transformers, imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and non-compliance with Rule 10 of CER, 2002. The tribunal found that while the excess stock was not subject to confiscation, the Appellant's violation of Rule 10 warranted a penalty, albeit reduced in consideration of the circumstances.
|
