9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.K. Hatangadi a/w Shri Shanjay Hasija, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 2002 is the subject matter of present dispute. The appellants in these appeals have contended that the provisions of Rule 26 shall have the application only in the case of natural individual person and not on the artificial person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and also relied upon the following judgments to state and submit that since, the appellants had contravened the statutory provisions, Rule 26 ibid has been correctly invoked by the authorities below in support of imposition of penalty. (i) Amritlakshmi Machine Works Vs. Commr. Of Cus. (Import), Mumbai (201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. On perusal of above statutory provision, it transpires that the penal provisions contained therein are applicable only in case of natural person and not for the artificial person namely the incorporated company or a partnership firm. Admittedly, in this case the appellants are the partnership firms. Since, they are not the natural persons, I am of the considered view that the provisions of Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibid can be imposed only on the individual person and not on the artificial person or company inasmuch as the goods are handled by a natural person and not by an artificial entity. I also find that similar views have also been expressed by this Tribunal in the orders relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant. The decisions relied upon by learned AR for Revenue are distinguishable from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
