2004 (12) TMI 195 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Penalty imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on co-accused without confiscation of goods.

Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai heard both sides regarding the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation, and since the goods were not confiscated, the penalty should not apply. Additionally, the main parties involved had been granted immunity from penalty by the Settlement Commission. The appellant contended that as co-accused, they should not face a greater penalty than the main accused. The counsel cited various decisions supporting this argument, emphasizing that the co-accused should not bear higher penal consequences than the main accused.

The counsel further argued that legally, the penalty on the co-accused could not be sustained, and requested the impugned order to be set aside and the appeals to be allowed. The Junior Departmental Representative reiterated the lower Authorities' order. After considering both sides, reviewing the records, and relevant case laws, the Member (J) concluded that the co-accused should not face a higher penalty than the main accused. Since the main accused had been absolved of penal consequences, there was no basis for imposing a penalty on the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.