9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 860 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - offence of transportation of imported goods from the port to M/s Pamis Tex Pvt. Ltd. - HELD THAT - From the plain reading of Rule 26 it is explicitly clear that under Rule 26 the penalty is imposed when the person deals with the excisable goods which is liable for confiscation - From the plain reading of the definition of excisable goods it is clear that it is only those goods which are subject to duty of excise. From the combined reading of Rule 26 and Section 2 (d) , the penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed only on dealing with the excisable goods which is subject to excise duty - In the present case the goods transported by the appellant are indeed imported goods therefore, for dealing with the imported goods penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed. Penalty is set aside. Appeal is allowed.
Issues:
Penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for transportation of imported goods. Analysis: The appellant was penalized under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for transporting imported goods. The appellant argued that Rule 26, which pertains to excisable goods, does not apply to imported goods. The Revenue, represented by the Superintendent, supported the impugned order. The Member (Judicial) carefully considered both arguments and examined the records. The penalty imposed was Rs. 2.5 Lacs for transporting imported goods from the port to a specific location. Rule 26 was cited, outlining penalties for dealing with excisable goods liable for confiscation. The definition of 'excisable goods' from the Central Excise Act, 1944 was also referenced, emphasizing goods subject to excise duty. The analysis continued by highlighting that Rule 26 penalties apply only to excisable goods subject to excise duty. Since the goods in question were imported, not excisable, the penalty under Rule 26 could not be imposed. Consequently, the impugned order was modified, setting aside the penalty and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Member (Judicial) Mr. Ramesh Nair.
|
