9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalties cannot be imposed on the appellants in these two appeals - once the issue of the main company against whom the demand for duty was made under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, has been settled under SVLDRS, case for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 on the employees will fail. This exactly is prescribed by the scheme also. The only requirement is that person on whom penalty is imposed makes application under the scheme. Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No. 534-535 of 2007 - A/86667-86668/2021 - Dated:- 27-7-2021 - MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms. Payal Nahar, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri R.K. Dwivedi, Additional Commissioner, Authorised Rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hatterjee, Deputy General Manager (Finance) of M/s Indo Rama Synthetics (1) Ltd under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for his active role, decision making, and participation in the contraventions made by M/s Indo Rama Synthetics (1) Ltd; Butibori for above case of duty evasion and concerning himself with the goods which he believe to be liable for confiscation as discussed in preceding paras. (f) I impose penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Only) on Shri Ramesh Deshpande, Authorised Signatory and Manager (Excise) of M/s Indo Rama Synthetics (1) Ltd under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for his active role, decision making, and participation in the contraventions made by M/s Indo Rama Synthetics (1) Ltd; Butibori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce matter after settlement of the case of main party under SVLDRS is within very narrow compass, we take up these appeals for consideration. 3.2 The reasons for imposing penalty under rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, have been recorded by the Commissioner in para 61 of his order, as follows: 61. As regards, the proposed imposition of penalty on Noticee No. 3 (Shri D. Chatterjee) 4 (Shri Ramesh Deshpande) under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, I observe that both the Noticees are engaged in day-to-day activity / affairs of the company and were well aware of prescribed procedure and Rules in relation to Registration. Thus the act of applying for Central Excise Registration for DTY Section by misstating the facts indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt Ltd [2012 (282) ELT 215 (Kar)] has after taking note of Rule 26, held as follows: 9 . For application of the Rule, the condition precedent is any excisable goods which he knows or reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or the Rules, then penalty is leviable under the aforesaid provision. 10 . In the instant case, admittedly no excisable goods are confiscated. The offence alleged against these respondents is, they were not diligent in seeing that the cheques issued towards payment of the excise duty were whether encashed or not. Therefore, the said offence does not fall under Rule 26 of the Excise Rules. 3.6 Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has in the case of Vee Gee Faucet Pvt Ltd [2015 (329) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said argument. Once the proceedings against the firm stand concluded, penalty proceedings against partners of the firm cannot continue as Rule 26 of the Rules is not an independent provision but has to be read with Section 11A of the Act. The firm has satisfied the due of the Revenue, therefore, the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Rules are not justified. 3.9 In view of the above referred decision, once the issue of the main company against whom the demand for duty was made under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, has been settled under SVLDRS, case for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 on the employees will fail. This exactly is prescribed by the scheme also. The only requirement is that person on whom penalty is im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
