9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tine clearance. The goods were accepted and carried by the drivers on the assurance that they would be issued invoices - For imposing penalty u/r 26 of CER, 2002 mens rea is essential, which is not there in the present case - penalty rightly set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/20359/2014-SM, E/20360/2014-SM, E/20361/2014-SM & E/ 20362/2014-SM - A/30191-30194/2017 - Dated:- 16-2-2017 - Mrs. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner(AR) for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. [Order Per: Mr. Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The above appeals are filed by Department against the order passed by the Commissioner who did not impose penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners. 3. On behalf of the department, learned AR, Shri Arun Kumar submitted that the lorry owners/drivers did not carry the way bill or the invoices in regard to the goods carried in the vehicle. That therefore, they have contravened the provisions of Central Excise Act/Rules and therefore the Commissioner ought to have imposed penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002. 4. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents even though notice was issued. The matter is taken up for disposal after hearing the learned AR and perusal of records. 5. The allegations against the respondents are that they did not carry the way bill/invoice in regard to the goods carried in the vehicle. RSPL had filed appeal E/28122/2013 before the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount was maintained by them and properly recorded. Due to their employees action, the goods were removed without invoice and the instruction of Mr. T. Sudharshan Babu to the lorry drivers that the invoice will be issued very near to the premises of the assessees, the vehicles carried goods without invoice. Before invoice was issued to the Lorry Drivers, the department has seized the vehicles of our lorries. For the act of the employees and the purchaser, they could not be held liable for the contravention of the Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 7. Thus RSPL had submitted that the goods were properly accounted and the vehicles had left the premises of the factory before they could issue the invoices. That they have already pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute with regard to the proper accounting of goods. Therefore, there is no proper evidence to establish the fact that the goods were clandestinely removed. It may be a fact that the drivers of the lorries did not carry the invoices at the time of interception. The Commissioner has observed in para 61 that there is no evidence to prove that the lorry drivers or the owners had involved themselves in clandestine clearance. The goods were accepted and carried by the drivers on the assurance that they would be issued invoices. For imposing penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 mens rea is essential i.e. the department has to prove that the drivers or the owners of the lorries had knowledge that the goods are liable for. confisca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
