9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Rules, 2002 on the ground that these merchant-exporters abetted certain offence found to have been committed by one M/s. Evergreen Fashions. The said M/s. Evergreen Fashions issued invoices and ARE1 s/ARE2 s under Rules 11 and 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 without there being any removal of goods from their factory, so as to facilitate claiming and collection of rebate under Rule 18 fraudulently. These documents were countersigned by the above merchant-exporters, who, in the respective statements, stated inter alia that they had done as above at the instance of one Mr. Mukesh Khatri, a textile broker in Surat, who brokered transactions between them and M/s. Evergreen Fashions. In their statements, they further stated that Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not filed any appeal so far. The period of limitation prescribed under the Act expired long ago. If that be the case, M/s. Evergreen Fashions will be presumed to have conceded their offence. In other words, the finding against the present appellants is one of abetment of an admitted offence. In this scenario, I am of the view that the appellants should pre-deposit a reasonable amount for purposes of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The learned counsel has argued inter alia that there can be no personal penalty on partnership firm like M/s. Vikram International. According to him, any penalty under Rules 26 ibid, if otherwise impossible, should be on the partners of such firm. In this connection, the learned counsel has relied on the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority upheld the allegation and imposed the above penalty. The learned counsel has submitted that whatever action was taken by the applicant in relation to the transactions of M/s. Evergreen Fashions was taken in his capacity as a chartered accountant and that he has acted only bona fide. On these grounds, the learned counsel prays for allowing the application. The learned SDR has opposed this plea on the strength of the findings contained in the impugned order. In answer to a query from the Bench, he conceded that no statement under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act was taken from Mr. Pradeep Poddar. Prima facie, I find favour with the plea raised by the learned counsel that the findings recorded against the applicant for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
