9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r without discharging the liability, the alleged guilt, cannot be confirmed against the appellant. Perusal of Rule 26 makes it abundantly clear that unless and until there is sufficient evidence about the mens area/ intent on the part of the appellant which prove that he knew or had reason to believe that excisable goods with which he is involved, he is transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with such excisable goods, are liable for confiscation, he cannot be penalised under Rule 26. The entire record does not reveal any evidence or the document produced by the Department to reflect or to prove the same. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with clandestinely removed excisable goods. The said proposal was confirmed vide order under challenge with the imposition of penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs. 2. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the issue is no more res integra as it has already been decided in favour of the appellant. The Final Order No.52703/2018 (SM) dated 31.07.2018 in Appeal No. E/51715/2018 along with Final Order No. 52646/2018 dated 23.07.2018 in Appeal No. 51402/2018 have been impressed upon which has been passed in favour of the appellant on the same issue as the one involved in the present case. It is requested that similar relief be extended for the appellant in the impugned appeal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, it cannot be ruled out that appellant would not have been involved in the said clandestine removal. To my opinion presumptive decision in absence of any evidence may not be accepted that too when there has been subsequent decisions of this Tribunal based upon the directions of decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of R A Castings Pvt. Ltd cited as 2011 (269) ELT A 108 wherein it has been held that the appellant is merely commission agent; and that unless and until there is corroborative evidence to support the allegations of providing raw material by the appellant to the main manufacturer without discharging the liability, the alleged guilt, cannot be confirmed against the appellant. 6. The penalties otherwise has been impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
