Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (12) TMI 165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act, Central Excise Act etc - The owner of the vehicle was found liable to a fine of Rs. 30,000/- imposed in this regard and the driver, a penalty of Rs. 2000/- imposed on him. - E/914-917 and 868/2006-MAS - 1356-1360/2008 - Dated:- 1-12-2008 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri M. Somasundaram, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - These are five appeals of which four appeals are filed by the members of the trade and one appeal filed by the Revenue, all against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28-1-2005, a truck carrying 4202.300 kgs of Poly Propylene Rolls (PPR) was intercepted by the preventive .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) from SAP. He appropriated an amount of duty of Rs. 23,318/- found due on the 4202.300 kgs of PPR seized on 28-1-2005 and released provisionally. He found the seized PPR liable for confiscation and imposed a fine of Rs. 72,000/- in lieu of confiscation. He ordered confiscation of the vehicle used for transporting the contraband under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed a fine of Rs. 70,000/- towards the value of the same. A penalty of Rs. 80,248/- was imposed on SAP under Section 11AC of the Act. A penalty of Rs.15,000/- was also imposed on SAP under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (CER) and a penalty of Rs.15,000/- imposed on AP under Rule 26 of the CER. He .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the both parties, the same is also taken up. 5. Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants for SAP made a weak attempt to canvass a case that the seized goods had been manufactured by SAP on job work basis for AP and that the same were entitled for full exemption under Notification No. 8/2003, dated 1-3-2003. The appellants SAP have mainly contested the penalties imposed on them on the ground that penalties under Section 11AC of the Act and under Rule 25 of the CER could not be simultaneously imposed in relation to the same transaction. Therefore both penalties were liable to be set aside. He relies on the Tribunal's decision in Lauls Ltd v. CCE, New Delhi [2003 (158) E.L.T. 711 (Tri.-Del)], wherein a consolidated penalty impos .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Act, the authority did not have discretion to impose a penalty less than the amount of duty demanded. This is also the prayer made in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 7. I have carefully considered case records and the rival submissions. The appeals filed by the parties relate to the fine and penalty in the impugned order. I find that an amount of Rs. 56,930/- has been demanded under Section 11A(2) of the Act towards the duty due on clandestine clearances of PPR made by SAP. The argument that goods seized had been cleared by SAP as a job worker and the principal was yet to cross the full exemption limit under the available Notification No. 8/2003 was canvassed for the first time before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants had fa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y clearing the impugned goods has been established. The penalty imposed on AP as per the impugned order under Rule 26 of CER is sustained. The fine imposed for releasing the vehicle found liable for confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act (made applicable to the Central Excise Act) and the penalty imposed on the driver Shri A. Rajagopal are challenged on the ground that the vehicle had been put to use for transport of excisable goods liable for confiscation without the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle or driver. I find that this claim is not substantiated. A driver in-charge of a vehicle transporting goods from one place to another is expected to be conversant with the formalities he has to follow in respect of the goods in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates