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

2010 (10) TMI 457

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hri Tejas Arvindbhai Desai and Shri Amit Murarilal Agarwal and has imposed penalties upon them. In addition, penalties of Rs. 50,000/- each stand imposed on the other three appellants, who are the officers of the Central Excise, in terms of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and penalties of Rs. 5,000/- each stand imposed upon them under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. As the matter has come on the record a number of times and was being repeatedly adjourned in the interest of justice, we find that non-appearance of Shri Tajas Desai requires his appeal to be dismissed for non-prosecution. We order accordingly and dismiss his appeal on the above ground. 2. As regards the other three appeals, Shri Vishal Agarwal, learned Charte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f ARE-1s. That is, when the dates pertained to the month of April 2004, they had actually signed the papers only in the month of May 2004. The allegations imply that by signing ante date, they had enabled the claimants/real beneficiaries to obtain the erroneous rebate. The department relies upon the statement of Shri Tejas Desai recorded by the department on 13-9-2004 in this regard. The validity of the statement has already been accepted as discussed in earlier paras. The fact that the emergence of (forged) shipping bills had preceded the ARE-1s is the starting point of evidence that no goods had been involved and the transactions were effected only on paper. Therefore, had they not signed the ARE-1s ante date (mentioned as 'back dated' in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ory or the warehouse, within 24 hours of removal of the goods. In that case, the officer, after verifying the particulars of duty paid or duty payable and endorsing the correctness or otherwise of these particulars, is required to send the same to the officer with whom the rebate claim is to be filed, either by post or by handing over to the exporter in a tamper proof sealed cover. As such, submits the learned advocate that the officers posted over the factory of the assessee were not required to examine the stuffing of the goods in the container or to do anything with the physical verification. Their role was limited to verify the particulars of the duty payable. The allegation of the Revenue that the officers in question have ante dated t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the practice adopted for maintenance of party wise registers. He submits that such registers were being maintained by the officers for a long time and such practice, being adopted by them, cannot be faulted upon in the present case in the absence of instructions to the contrary. In any case, he submits that the same, if contrary to law, can be proceeded under the departmental proceedings and do not call for imposition of penalty under Rule 27. As regards imposition of penalty under Rule 26, learned advocate takes a technical ground that if there are no goods involved, even according to the Revenue's own case, no penalty can be imposed upon them. 6. Learned DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the original adjudic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he officers, in preference to retracted statement of a co-accused. Further, as rightly contended by the learned advocate appearing for the appellants that Shri Nanda, one of the officers was on training at Mumbai from May 2004 to June 2004 and as such could not have ante dated his signatures in the month of May 2004. Though the Commissioner has taken note of the above plea of the appellant, no satisfactory reason stands discussed by him for not accepting the same. We also find favour with the appellants contention that non maintenance of proper records by the officers (if any), would not call for penalty imposition under Rule 27. 8. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Rajdoot .....

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