9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 313 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - wrongfully paid less duty - on detection of mistake the duty was paid and intimation to Range superintendent also made, before issuance of SCN - HELD THAT - In the present case penalty has been imposed on the Appellants under the provisions of Rule, 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The provisions of Rule 209A ibid specifically postulates that any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these Rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times of the value of such goods or Rs.5,000/-, whichever is greater. There is merit in the contention of the Appellant. Penalty under Rule 209A, which is akin to Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable only on an individual and not on a Firm, as held by the Tribunal, Kolkata in the case of WOODMEN INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA 2003 (9) TMI 228 - CESTAT, KOLKATA - In the case of ADITYA STEEL INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD 1996 (2) TMI 232 - CEGAT, MADRAS , also it has been held that Penalty under Rule 209A not imposable on a partnership concern and only person concerned can be penalized under this section. The Appellant has short paid the duty inadvertently, which has been rectified by them by paying the differential duty along with interest before issue of the Notice. Also, the impugned order has not brought any evidence on record to substantiate the allegation of abetment of the offence by the Appellant. By relying on the decisions cited above, the penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 imposed on the Appellant is not sustainable. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the Appellant, who supplied an Induction Furnace of 4 M.T instead of 6 M.T to a company, leading to a differential duty payment and subsequent appeal against the penalty. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty under Rule 209A The Appellant received an Order-in-Original imposing a penalty of Rs.20,00,000/- for supplying an Induction Furnace of 4 M.T instead of the actual 6 M.T capacity. The Appellant contended that they rectified the mistake by paying the differential duty voluntarily before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The department alleged abetment of central excise duty evasion and imposed the penalty. The Appellant argued that Rule 209A is not applicable as they rectified the error before the SCN was issued. Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 209A on Corporate Bodies The Appellant argued that Rule 209A, akin to Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, is not applicable to corporate bodies. They cited precedents where penalties under Rule 209A were held not imposable on firms. The Tribunal observed merit in this argument, stating that penalties under Rule 209A are imposable only on individuals, not corporate entities. Judgment The Tribunal noted that the Appellant rectified the duty underpayment inadvertently and voluntarily before the SCN was issued. The impugned order lacked evidence of abetment by the Appellant. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal held that penalties under Rule 209A are not sustainable on corporate bodies. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the Appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. *(Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open Court.)*
|
