9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21-2-2006 recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, confessed to clandestine removal of M.S. bars (goods in question) of different sizes valued at Rs. 2,04,679/- to one M/s. Hari Om Steels on 6-2-2006. He also paid duty on the goods. In a subsequent show-cause notice, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner proposed, inter alia, to confiscate the above goods under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and to impose penalty on the party under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25. In adjudication of the show-cause notice, the Assistant Commissioner ordered confiscation of the goods under Rule 25(1)(d) and a fine of Rs. 40,000/- was imposed in lieu of confiscation, apart from confirmation of the demand of duty and imposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the subject goods which were purchased under cover of a chit from M/s. Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. It was on this basis that the relevant show-cause notice proposed to penalise Mr. Prakash M. Patel under Rule 26, which stipulated that any person who acquired possession of, or was in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealt with, any excisable goods which, he knew or had reason to believe, were liable to confiscation under the Act or the Rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or rupees ten thousand, whichever is greater. In adjudication of the notice, the original authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 16,500/- on Mr. Praka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l offender has conceded the offence. What remains to be ascertained is whether Mr. Prakash M. Patel abetted that offence by physically dealing with the goods supplied by the above company without payment of duty. The goods were so supplied under cover of a chit unlike on other occasions where identical goods were supplied under cover of invoices. It is nobody s case that the chit indicated duty of excise having been paid on the goods which were supplied under its cover. In the circumstances, I am constrained to take the view that Mr. Prakash M. Patel had knowledge of the non-duty-paid character of the goods when he received them under cover of the chit issued by the above company. This factor directly attracts the provisions of Rule 26(1) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
