9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 814 - HC - Central ExcisePenalty u/r 25 of CER - Whether Order passed by the learned Tribunal is sustainable when the Settlement Commission had settled the case of main notice? - Whether penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is sustainable in case goods are not held liable to confiscation as there were no goods? - Held that - it was conceded by the assessee before the authorities below that the invoices were issued without even supplying any goods. It was also recorded that the Settlement Commission did not admit the case of the appellant and also that Settlement Commission nowhere had held that their order would be extended in the case of the appellant as well. Penalty under Rule 25 of the Rules - Held that - the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of this Court in V.K. Enterprises v. CCE, 2011 (3) TMI 133 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , had held that the person purporting to sell goods could not say that he was not concerned with selling of goods and had not contravened the provisions of Rule 25 of the Rules. In such cases, the penalty was held to be imposable - the Tribunal had correctly held that the quantum of penalty in the circumstances of the present case could not be faulted on the ground that it was excessive. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
- Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable when the Settlement Commission had settled the case of the main notice? - Whether penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is sustainable when goods are not held liable to confiscation? - Whether maximum penalty is sustainable in case minimum penalty is not prescribed? - Whether the impugned order is perverse and contrary to record? - Whether grave and palpable injustice would be caused to the Appellant if the respondents are permitted to execute the order? Analysis: Issue 1: Settlement Commission's Decision The appellant sought quashing of the final order passed by the Tribunal, arguing that the Settlement Commission had settled the case of the main notice. However, it was noted that the Settlement Commission rejected the appellant's application and granted immunity to another party. The Tribunal held that the Settlement Commission did not consider extending its order to the appellant, making the appellant's contention unsustainable. Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty Regarding the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, the Tribunal referred to a judgment stating that even if no goods were involved, the penalty could be imposed. The Tribunal found that the appellant had issued invoices without delivering goods, intending to evade duty, which rendered the penalty justifiable. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal precedents and was deemed appropriate. Issue 3: Quantum of Penalty The Tribunal correctly determined that the quantum of penalty in the case was not excessive given the circumstances. The Tribunal's assessment of the penalty amount was upheld as reasonable and in line with the legal provisions. Issue 4: Legality of Tribunal's Findings The Tribunal's findings were deemed legal and not perverse, as they were based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles. The Court found no grounds for interference with the Tribunal's decision, as no substantial question of law arose from the case. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision on the sustainability of the order, imposition of penalty under Rule 25, adequacy of penalty quantum, and legality of the findings. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal precedents and adherence to statutory provisions in determining the outcome of the case.
|
