9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) and Rules 6, 8 and 10 of the above Rules - Penalty under Rule 26 of C.E.R. 2002 - HELD THAT:- It must be stated that it is for the department to establish by methods known to law that duty was evaded and to bring out the role of the parties alleged to have been involved in a satisfactory manner. That onus cannot be shifted to the parties against whom allegations have been made. It is only when sufficient evidence, either direct or circumstantial, in respect of its allegations was disclosed by the Revenue that adverse inference could be drawn against the noticees. In the case of imposition of penalty, it has to be proved further by revenue that the person penalised was involved in the blame worthy act with which he is charged. On enquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anoop Singh, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER These appeals are filed by the appellants against common impugned order No. 11 of 2014 dated 31.12.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai. 2. Facts of the case are that M/s. Vaibhav Corporation are engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots. On the basis of intelligence that M/s.Vaibhav Corporation have evaded central excise duty payable on the clearance of MS ingots, the officers of DGCEI, Madurai Regional Unit searched its factory and factory premises on 12.11.2008 and have seized the hard discs of the two computers and nine documents under mahazar. Statements were recorded from the partners of the company. Based on the investigations conducted, it appeared t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel on behalf of the appellant M/s Dhandapani Steel Pvt. Ltd., Erode, submitted that they are the manufactures of Alloy Steel Castings and also exporting alloy steel castings to Australia, USA, Chile etc. They are not the manufacture of re-rolling products or TMT bars or rods and M/s Vaibhav Corporation is not known to them and they have not made any purchase of 'ingots' from them or any transaction. Further they had submitted that they had not purchased or sold any ingots from any other supplier during the period in dispute and they are in no way connected with the said M/s Vaibhave Corporation. He also expressed surprise as to how his company's name has been included in the show cause notice. He requested that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and thus the proposal to impose penalty on the noticee under Rule 26 ibid is not legally valid. In the light of the above, they requested that the case may be dropped. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant M/s GBR Metals Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, submitted that the firm has not purchased any material from M/s Vaibhav Corporation, Madurai and hence requested charges framed may be dropped. He stated that the allegation against all the appellants is based upon a Private Diary No other corroborative evidences are available against the appellants. The Department also verified the appellant's records; the Ledger Accounts and Profit Loss and balance sheets and there was no invoices; no receipt of any materials from M/s. Vaibhav Mercantile, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that adverse inference could be drawn against the noticees. In the case of imposition of penalty, it has to be proved further by revenue that the person penalised was involved in the blame worthy act with which he is charged. 5. On enquiry it was informed by revenue that the main noticee M/s. Vaibhav Corporation, Madurai has not filed an appeal. I find that the impugned order is very cryptic about the part played by the appellants. Para 53 of the impugned order which records the findings of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority against the appellants is reproduced below: 53. I also observe that the clearance details of ingots shown in the 'Scrap-Ingor register, 'Loading Details' register and 'Roots' register for the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cit nature. The arguments of the above said steel units that penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable only on a person and not on a firm or company is not acceptable. Though 'person' is not defined in the Central Excise Act, 1944, 'person' includes any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. Therefore, in case of a contravention of any of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, its partners in charge of the business are responsible for the conduct of the same are liable unless such contravention took place without their knowledge or they exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
