Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (11) TMI 605

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he appeal is dismissed. - 180 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2008 - D.A. Mehta and Abhilasha Kumari, JJ. Shri Harin P. Raval, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant-Revenue has proposed the following question: Whether the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is justified in reducing the redemption fine after having upheld the confiscation and further whether on confiscation having been upheld on the ground of violation of Rule 173Q(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is the Tribunal justified in setting aside the penalty under Rule 173Q? which admittedly does not arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal in case of the respondent-assessee. Hence, the learned counsel f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orded under Section 14 of the Act, which is admissible in evidence, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in setting aside the personal penalty imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 though the Respondent had knowingly concerned himself in fraudulent acts in contravention of provisions of the rules and dealt with goods which are held liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Rules? It appears that, against the Limited Company, wherein the assessee is serving as Manager, certain proceedings were taken and as a consequence, after drawing of a panchnama on 16/17-12-1998, statement of respondent-assessee was recorded on 17-12-1998 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After issuing a consolida .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... voked. It is seen from the records that the officers categorically stated that they are not very much aware that about the provisions to be followed and on being pointed out by the authorities reversed/ debited the amounts. This itself would show that the officers had no knowledge of the Central Excise law. In view of this, I find that penalties imposed on these two officers under the provisions of Rule 209A is unwarranted and is liable to be set aside and I do so. The learned counsel for the appellant has read extensively from the show cause notice issued to the Company and its employees and also invited attention to the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority. It was submitted that, in case of the Company, Tax Appeal No. 1041 o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... estinely without payment of duty or make overdrawn from the PLA account or take irregular modvat credit or take credit towards excess duty paid. On being pointed out, they have suo motu reversed the 10% modvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,09,313/- towards inputs sent to the processor for job-work, reversed the credit of Rs. 98,745/- taken towards excess duty paid and have also paid up the interest amounting to Rs. 1,26,488/- on the overdrawn PLA account. [6] The lapses can at best be treated as inadvertent errors and procedural infractions, which need to be excused and condoned. The impugned order of Tribunal is a consolidated order in relation to the appeals of the Company and the employees, wherein it has been held: Insofar as the dem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tribunal has recorded that the requirement of Rule 209A of the Rules to show and bring on record that the officer had knowledge, is absent, and there is a categorical finding that the officers were not aware about the provisions to be followed, had no knowledge of Central Excise law, and upon being pointed out, had reversed the entry/debited the amounts. Thus, it is apparent that, on the same set of facts and evidence, the Tribunal has, after appreciating the same, arrived at a conclusion that the requirement of Rule 209A of the Rules is not shown to have been satisfied. In the circumstances, even if a different view is possible on the same set of facts and evidence, that by itself would not be sufficient to reverse the finding of the Tr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates