9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the penalty imposed on the assessee under Rule 25 is not sustainable on the ground of violation of Rules 4 and 6 under the facts and circumstances where the manufacturer of excisable goods has removed the goods on payment of only a portion of duty leviable or payable in terms of Rules 4 and 6 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002? 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the 1st respondent manufactured and removed Epichloro Hydrin (for short 'ECH') and supplied it to M/s.Petro Araldite Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'PAPL'). The 1st respondent company was manufacturing the said goods as a joint venture company with M/s.Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Switzerland and the Indian collaborator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2000. In the show cause notices, interest was also demanded under Section 11AB apart from proposing penalties under the Central Excise Rules. 4. It appears that there was a first round of litigation and the matter came before the Tribunal in a batch of appeals. The appeals were disposed of by order dated 4.8.05 made in Final Order Nos.1079 to 1081/2005 reported in 2006 (193) ELT 430 (Tri-Chennai) (Commissioner of Central Excise, Vhennai - Vs -Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd.). In the said case, it is the finding of the Tribunal that there was a case of mutual interest between the 1st respondent/assessee and PAPL and, therefore, Section 4 (1) (b) would govern the valuation. It further held that the goods should be valued in terms of Rule 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above finding, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment made by the Commissioner and sustained the duty demanded by the impugned order. 7. The only issue, thereafter, left for the Tribunal to consider was on penalty. For better clarity, the finding of the Tribunal in relation to imposition of penalty and the order thereof, is extracted hereinbelow :- 6. In relation to the penalty imposed on the assessee, we have found substance in the submissions made by learned counsel. The Commissioner found violations of Rule 4 and 6 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by the assessee. Rule 4 required correct assessment of excisable g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold that when there is no violation of Rules 4 and 6, penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 25. On a reading of Rules 4, 6 and 25, it is clear that once it is found that there is no violation of Rules 4 and 6, penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 25 and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on that aspect of the matter has to be sustained. 10. In view of the above provision of law and the order of the Tribunal, we find no reason to differ with the findings as the said decision of the Tribunal is in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules. This Court is of the considered view that a perusal of the grounds of appeal would also reveal that there is no serious error or infirmity in the said finding of the Tribunal. The merit of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
