9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods, (ii) who is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing; or (iii) who in any other manner deals with the goods. The argument of the Learned Counsel for the appellants is that Rule 26 can be invoked only when a person has dealt with the goods physically and that since there is no allegation in the notices that the appellants physically dealt with the goods, no penalty can be imposed - this contention does not hold water in the light of the fact that Rule 26 uses the expression “in any other manner deals with any excisable goods”. The words “deals with’’ need not necessarily mean the physical dealing with the goods - If providing blank challans/invoices to a company to enable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy paid - appeal allowed in part. - C.E.A. No. 2 and 8 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 1-5-2018 - V. Ramasubramanian and J. Uma Devi, JJ. Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Counsel for the Petitioner. Shri M.V.J.K. Kumar, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT [Judgment per : V. Ramasubramanian, J. ]. - Common : The assessees have come up with the above appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, questioning a common order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), in a batch of six appeals. 2. Heard Mr. Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department. 3. A company by name Somakanth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dividuals namely Sudhir Kothari, Dilip Kothari and Ajay Vyas and one appeal by Dhiran Transport Corporation. 6. All the six appeals were taken up for hearing together by the CESTAT and by an order dated 14-9-2017, the CESTAT dismissed the appeals filed by the company Somakanth Multi Tech. Pvt. Ltd., and its Managing Director T. Venkateswar Rao for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the CESTAT confirmed the liability of the three individuals namely Sudhir Kothari, Dilip Kothari and Ajay Vyas as well as the liability of M/s. Dhiran Transport Corporation to be penalized. But CESTAT granted a concession by reducing a penalty of ₹ 20,00,000/- to ₹ 5,00,000/- in the case of three individuals and by reducing the penalty from ₹ 20,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or rupees two thousand rupees, whichever is greater. Provided that where any proceeding for the person liable to pay duty have been concluded under clause (a) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 AC of the Act in respect of duty, interest and penalty, all proceedings in respect of penalty against other persons, if any, in the said proceedings shall also be deemed to be concluded. (2) Any person, who issues - (i) an excise duty invoice without delivery of the goods specified therein or abets in making such invoice; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the said company used these blank challans/invoices for the clandestine removal of the manufactured goods, under the guise of trading activity. If providing blank challans/invoices to a company to enable them to remove the manufactured goods clandestinely, will not fall under the category in any manner dealing with the goods , we do not know what these words deals with would mean. Therefore, the contention based upon Rule 26 does not hold water. 13. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there was no proposal for confiscation and that therefore, the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Tubes of India Limited, v. CCE, Indore (2007 (217) 506) would squarely apply. 14. Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 2,50,000/- towards penalty, out of the penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- each imposed upon them by the Tribunal. It means 50% of the penalty as ordered by the Tribunal has already been paid. Hence, we are of the considered view that while answering the question of law against the appellants, the penalties payable by them could be reduced to the extent of the amount already paid. The appeals are accordingly disposed of, answering the question of law against the appellants, but reducing the penalty to the extent of 50% of the amount ordered by CESTAT and which amount is stated to have been already paid. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
