9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this reason, 99,000 carton of corrugated boxes valued at Rs. 5,04,100/- involving Central Excise Duty of Rs. 80,656/- were placed under seizure. Another irregularity was that the appellant had taken Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 38,410/- in respect of paper received prior to 1-8-04 for use in the manufacture of Corrugated boxes. The Asstt. Commissioner vide order-in-original dt. 29-11-05 confirmed the demand of wrongly taken Modvat credit of Rs. 38,410/-, ordered confiscation of the Corrugated boxes under Rule 25(1) of Central Excise Rules and besides this, imposed penalty of Rs. 80,656/- on the respondent under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules and another penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On appeal, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 203) E.L.T. 521 wherein it was held that for imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(a), (b) and (c) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, no mens rea is required. He pleaded that the Rule 25(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 corresponds to Rule 173Q(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the old Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2.2 Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that there was no intention on the part of the respondent to evade any duty as whatever corrugated boxes were produced, the same were meant for packaging of the glass articles being manufactured by the respondent. He also pleaded that the manufacture of corrugated boxes was started in Aug 04 and the officers visited the unit was in Dec 04 when a case of non-maint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case against them. This plea of the respondent is not acceptable as ignorance of law is not on excuse for non-compliance. In view of the above, I am of the view that penalty under Rule 25(1) of Central Excise Rules were was called for in addition to confiscation of the goods. As held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vapi v. Modison Ltd. (supra) for imposition of penalty under clause (a), (b) (c) to Rule 173Q(1), which corresponds to clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, no mens rea is required. The impugned order, setting aside the order of the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty on the Appellant is, therefore, set aside. Looking to the circumstances of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
