2021 (10) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant s Company to follow procedure as per notification 214/86-CE or other procedures under Central Excise Rules. Accordingly, the appellant have rightly supplied the raw material under the cover of simple challan. Irrespective of any offence committed by the job worker or otherwise, the appellant being not a party to that offence, cannot be penalized under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri S. Suryanarayanan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that Shri Rakesh Bansal is Director of M/s. Ayush Texlene Limited. M/s. Ayush Texlene sent PET films .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... find that in the present case, the appellant is Director of a raw material supplier to job worker. The appellant's Company is not registered with Central Excise department. In this case, it cannot be expected from the appellant's Company to follow procedure as per notification 214/86-CE or other procedures under Central Excise Rules. Accordingly, the appellant have rightly supplied the raw material under the cover of simple challan. Irrespective of any offence committed by the job worker or otherwise, the appellant being not a party to that offence, cannot be penalized under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In identical case of Mathew Abraham (supra), this Tribunal has set-aside the penalty and allowed the appeal. The said order is re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... upreme Court and no contrary judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is available. Therefore, following the said judgment M/s. MGM Metalizers have paid the Service Tax which Prima Facie appears to be correct. This also show a bona fide on the part of M/s. MGM Metalizers Ltd. therefore, in these circumstances the charge of abatement for evasion of duty by MGM has no basis against the present appellant. It is also observed that once M/s. MGM Metalizers Ltd. has discharged Service Tax there is no intention of evasion of duty. Even the department was aware the fact that MGM Metalizers are paying Service Tax on their activity which claimed by the department as manufacture. For this reason also no mala fide is proved against anyone. 5. As per my abov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X