9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame is not subject to any penalty under Rule 26. - The certificate appears to have been obtained at the time of the proceedings that were initiated for the purpose of imposition of penalty and taking action against the trader. This therefore could not be described as an act to attract penalty under Rule 26 and 27, even though this may give a separate cause of action on the ground of money laundering or providing incorrect evidence in order to extend any benefit to the trader or the assessee. The penalty under Rule 26 and 27 therefore would not be attracted in the said background and accordingly we do not find any substantial question of law so as to entertain this appeal. - Decided against Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. - 13 of 2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. The Tribunal after taking notice of the aforesaid facts has independently now recorded a finding that Rule 26 and 27 are not attracted, inasmuch as, the respondent had no role in the alleged clearance of the goods without payment of excise duty and therefore in the absence of any such act or abetment the penalty imposed on the respondent was unjustified. The appeal was accordingly allowed against which the department has come up before this Court. Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan has invited the attention of the Court to Rule 26 and Rule 27 of the 2002 Rules that are extracted herein under for ready reference:- Rule 26. Penalty for certain offences. - (1) Any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. The certificate in effect indicated that the said amount of huge cash was a sort of investment received from such investors which was not found to be correct by the Tribunal, and therefore the certificate was a false certificate which ultimately benefited the trader/assessee in setting up an explanation with regard to the evasion of excise duty. He therefore submits that such an act of issuance of a certificate during the course of the proceedings amounts to an abetment as per Section 26 (2)(ii) and hence the imposition of penalty was justified. Having considered the submissions raised, we find that in the appeal filed by the trader, the finding recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 12th August, 2011 is categorically to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
