9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case against the main notice i.e., the company is related to valuation of the goods. The allegation against the company is that the company has not paid the duty correctly and the goods were sold to the related person. The issue of valuation is based on the strict interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and the rules made thereunder. However, the appellant under a belief that since the goods are sold, duty is paid on the transaction value, for the clearance of goods proper invoices were raised, therefore, there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant s company. The case is based on only interpretation of valuation provision of Central Excise. Therefore, it cannot be said that the director of the company ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not liable for confiscation. Therefore, the penalty on the person appellant under Rule 26 is not maintainable. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments: - Castrol India Ltd v. CCE-2008 (222) ELT 408 (T) Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. v. CCE-2002 (148) ELT 161 (1) S.K. Company (P) Ltd. v. CCE-2006 (203) ELT 137 (1) S.K. Company (P) Ltd. v. CCE-2008 (226) ELT 47 (P H) Madhu Food Products v. CCE-1995 (76) ELT 197 Kiran Pondy Chems Ltd v. CCE-2009 (248) ELT 434 (T) Klene Paks Ltd v. CCE-2009 (247) ELT 271 (1) Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd v. U.O.I. - 1978 (2) ELT (1172) (S.C) CCE v. Arsh Casting Pvt. Ltd.-2010 (252) ELT 191 (H.P) Rama Shyama Papers Ltd v. CCE - 2004 (168) ELT 494 (1) P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retation of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and the rules made thereunder. However, the appellant under a belief that since the goods are sold, duty is paid on the transaction value, for the clearance of goods proper invoices were raised, therefore, there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant s company. The case is based on only interpretation of valuation provision of Central Excise. Therefore, it cannot be said that the director of the company has any mala fide intention. In this fact, the personal penalty on the director is not correct and legal. This view is supported by various judgments cited by the learned Counsel. 5. Accordingly, the penalty under Rule 26 is set aside and appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
