2017 (1) TMI 1071

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on perusal of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, it is clear that a person who is dealing in any manner with goods liable for confiscation is liable to be penalized under the said rule 26. It is admitted fact on record that both the appellants have procured the goods on which Excise duty was evaded. Therefore, I do not find any strength in the argument putforth by the learned counsel for the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... om them and excisable goods i.e. printed laminated plastic packaging film in pouch or in roll, which appeared to have been removed by M/s. Poysha without payment of Excise duty should not be confiscated. The said show cause notice also made an allegation that the present appellants M/s. Panchwati Prayogshala and Shri Pankaj Goel, Director received the said packaging materials manufactured by M/s. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... both the appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, who argued that the allegations in the show cause notice were that the present appellants abated for evasion of Central Excise duty by M/s. Poysha and that for abatement penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be imposed. 4. Learned D.R. has supported the impugned Order-in-Origin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X