9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or two thousand rupees, whichever is greater." Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Per: P R Chandrasekharan: The appeal and stay application are directed against the Order-in-Original No. 07/2013/C dated 14.5.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. Vide the impugned order, the learned adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of ₹ 10 lakh on the appellant Mr. Ritesh Jain, who was the authorized signatory of the firm M/s Industrial P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e represented the appellant. On the previous occasion also when the case was heard on 21.1.2014, none appeared for the appellant and the case was adjourned. In the appeal memorandum, ShriRitesh Jain has submitted that the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 is incorrect inasmuch the said penalty can be imposed only when the goods are held liable to confiscation. In the impugned order, the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two thousand rupees, whichever is greater. Therefore, primary requirement of the said rule is that the goods should be held liable to confiscation and the person should be aware that the goods are liable to confiscation. 5.2 In the impugned order, there is no finding given by the adjudicating authority in respect of liability of confiscation of the goods. In the absence of such a finding, imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
