9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 26 ibid were similarly worded, concerning imposition of personal penalty. Since, the period of dispute involved in these appeals is from February, 2000 to September, 2003, both the provisions are attracted herein for consideration of the issue as to whether, the Department s action for imposition of penalty under Rule 209 and 26 ibid was proper or otherwise. It transpires that question of imposition of personal penalty would arise only in the eventuality, when the person concerned on whom the penalty is sought to be imposed, was having the knowledge that the offending goods were liable for confiscation. On reading of the show-cause notice as well as the impugned order, it is found that the authorities below nowhere had mentioned that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utilize such MODVAT/CENVAT Credit on clearance of the finished products outside the factory premises. On the basis of such intelligence, the Central Excise Department visited the factory of M/s Suman Die Casting Pvt. Ltd. and seized various records under Panchanama dated 18.09.2003. On the basis of detailed investigation into the matter, show-cause proceedings were initiated against M/s Suman Die Casting Pvt. Ltd., seeking for confirmation of the central excise duty demand along with interest and for imposition of penalty. Besides, the show-cause notice had also proposed for imposition of penalty on Shri Utsavlal Jain, Managing Director of M/s Suman Die Casting Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Shivaji Bhupal Chavare, Director of the said company under Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Shri Shivaji Bhupal Chavare, on whom penalties were imposed under Rule 209 of the Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of the Rules, 2002. 2. The appellants have assailed the impugned order on the ground that the provisions of erstwhile Rule 209 ibid and Rule 26 ibid shall not be invoked inasmuch as no proposals were made in the showcause notice for confiscation of the goods, which were not available in the factory. The appellants further stated that since Rule 26 is subject to the provisions of Rule 25 ibid, in absence of the proposal for confiscation, the action on the part of the Department for imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. 3. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 4. We find that Rule 209A ibid and Rule 26 ibid were similarl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of which the user of said invoice or document is likely to take or has taken any ineligible benefit under the Act or the rules made thereunder like claiming of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or refund, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. On reading of the above statutory provisions, it transpires that question of imposition of personal penalty would arise only in the eventuality, when the person concerned on whom the penalty is sought to be imposed, was having the knowledge that the offending goods were liable for confiscation. On reading of the show-cause notice as well as the impugned order, we find that the authorities below n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
