9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be expected to be the expert of Central Excise laws to find out before transporting the goods as to whether the manufacturer has correctly discharged the duty burden or not - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 238-239 of 2010 - SM - Order No. FO/ 52016-52017/2017-(SM) - Dated:- 27-2-2017 - Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri Ravinder Jain, Consultant for the Appellants Shri M Sharma, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa The challenge in the present appeals is to penalty of ₹ 25 lakh imposed on each of the appellant, who is a transporter, in terms of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The main impugned order is ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd goods. 4. While dealing with the said belief of the appellant, Commissioner has observed that: 68. Now I take up the defence of the Noticees in respect of Show cause notice dated 18.3.2008. Firstly, Noticee No. 5 to the show cause notice dt. 18.3.08 i.e. transporter M/s. Moongipa Roadways (P) Ltd. have contended that since the noticee demanded invoice / challan/ bill from the person who came for booking and the said person left the goods their and promised to bring invoice and in the meantime the goods were seized by the Central Excise Officers. And further contended that the statement of Shri Rakesh Aggarwal was dictated to him by the Central Excise Officere and was not a voluntary statement. I find that only denial by the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. 69. Thus, M/s. Moongipa Roadways were well versed with the activities done by M/s. Sunrise Food Product and M/s. Sanjay Aggarwal and company and have helped them in the transportations of clandestinely cleared goods from their factory to other place, as all these Gutkha and Pan Masala were booked in the other names of Mawa, Mouth Freshner etc. 5. Similarly in the case of Ms. Krishna Freight Movers, the Commissioner observed as under: 70. I, also find that M/s. Krishna Freight Movers were found to be receiving excisable goods without the cover of any invoice or challan for onward transportation. I also find that M/s. Krishna Freight Movers had the knowledge that the goods received from M/s. Sunrise Food Products were actua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... character. No documents were prepared by the transporter for the transportation of the said goods. 8. The Tribunal in the case of Perfect Transport Co. vs. CCE, Vapi [2013 (297) ELT 248 (Tri)] has held that penalty cannot be imposed based on assumption and presumptions. Similarly, in the case of Vijay Transport Co. Ltd. vs. CCE Daman [2008 (230) ELT 154 (Tri)], Tribunal has observed that transporter can not be expected to be the expert of Central Excise laws to find out before transporting the goods as to whether the manufacturer has correctly discharged the duty burden or not. Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Tubes of India vs. CCE Indore [2007 (217) ELT 506 (Tri-LB)] has held that separate penalties in the absence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
