9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2015 (5) TMI 243 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] are relevant and would be applicable for the present proceedings also, where it was held that Petitioners are not guilty of issuing any excise duty invoice without delivery of the goods nor such invoice was used to take ineligible benefit under the Act or the Rules nor both the petitioners were found guilty in transporting, removing or depositing any excisable goods, which were liable to be confiscated, no penalty - penalty not sustained. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/1138, 1039/2011-EX(SM) and E/2945-2946/2012-EX(SM) - Final Order No. 54630-54633/2016 - Dated:- 19-10-2016 - Shri Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings). He worked as full time Director till 8/6/2008 only, whereas the period involved in case of both the proceedings is post 8.6.2008. (ii) The other appellant, Mr. R.K. Agarwal was formerly D.G.M (Finance) and was not concerned with the activities mentioned under Rules 26 of Central Excise Rules, which has been invoked for initiating the proceedings against the assessee, M/s Kashipur Sugar Mills. (iii) The department issued number of show cause notices to the assessee Company, Kashipur Sugar Mills Ltd., where the appellants were working. In one of such cases, both the appellants filed Writ Petition in the Hon ble High Court of Uttarkhand at Nanital, where Hon ble High Court of Uttarkhand passed the order that the penalty impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e saying manufacturing capacity of the unit has been increased by 25 per cent. Learned Commissioner, Central Excise, vide impugned order, was pleased to observe that routine maintenance and renovation or repair would not amount to enhancement of the manufacturing capacity, therefore, was pleased to impose the excise duty against M/s Kashipur Sugar Mills Ltd. While doing so, learned Commissioner was further pleased to impose personal penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- against Mr. S.K. Bhatnagar and personal penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- against Mr. R.K. Agarwal by invoking Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 reads as under: 26. Penalty for certain offences:- [(1)] Any pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strates that any person issuing the excise duty invoice without delivery of the goods specified therein or abets in making such invoice; or such document is used to take any ineligible benefit under the Act or the Rules made therein shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. Undisputedly, petitioners are not guilty of issuing any excise duty invoice without delivery of the goods nor such invoice was used to take ineligible benefit under the Act or the Rules nor both the petitioners were found guilty in transporting, removing or depositing any excisable goods, which were liable to be confiscated. On the other hand, both the petitioners, raised the legal claim purs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
