9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imited under the provision of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The facts of the appeal, in brief, are that Shin Jeetendra Bhutra, (the Appellant) was earlier working as General Manager, Accounts, M/s ND Metal Industries Limited (M/s. NDMIL for short) Daman. The appellant received letters issued by the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Daman Commissionerate regarding recovery of government dues against order-in - original dated 19.06.2019 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Daman and requesting to pay the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-, the penalty imposed on the appellant under said order-in-original dated 19.06.2019. The appellant has already resigned from M/s ND Metal Industries Limited since May ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cated transportation documents viz. Delivery challan, bill for purported transportation up to Daman, evidence of payment of freight by cheque in an attempt to establish illicit nature of such transaction. The imported inputs so diverted to local market have been sold in cash to persons, who did not need Central Excise invoice and no record has been kept by M/s. NDMIL regarding such transactions. 2.1 During the course of investigation the statement of appellant Shri Jeetendra Bhutra, General Manager Accounts was recorded on 29.11.2007 wherein he stated that he was working as Accounts Manager of M/s. NDMIL for last seven years. His job profile was managing the accounts related work for the Company. He accepted that in all such cases where de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat from perusal of provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, it is clear that penalty under this Rule can be imposed on the person only when it is proved beyond doubt that the person was dealing with excisable goods and was involved in possessing, transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing of excisable goods, knew or had reason to believe that such excisable goods were liable for confiscation. In the instant case there is no evidence on record to prove that the appellant himself was dealing with goods and involved in the possessing, transporting, removing, depositing. keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing of excisable goods, knowingly that such goods were liable to confiscation. There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts) of M/s NDMIL, inter alia, stated that he was working as Accounts Manager of M/s NDMIL, for last 7 years. His job profile was managing the accounts related work for the Company. Shri Bhutra accepted that in all such cases where destination was declared as Bhiwandi in Bond/ Insurance documents, inputs had actually been unloaded at their Bhiwandi godown by PSTC despite mentioning of freight charged for transportation upto Daman and he did not have any documentary evidence to establish further transportation of such inputs from Bhiwandi to Daman. Learned AR prayed that Tribunal may kindly uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal filed by the appellant. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned AR f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up the quantity of imported input shown in the said bills of entry. In the present matter Revenue could not find out any single buyer of the alleged diverted inputs and single alternative raw material supplier of other inputs, if not used the imported input in the production. Apart from the records of RTO and transporters and their statements there is no material evidence brought out by investigation to establish that the goods did not reach the factory of the appellant. There is no evidence that the imported inputs shown in the bills of entry received by the appellant were not used in the manufacture of final product. The department has not disputed the correctness of the quantity manufactured by the appellant, recorded in their daily stoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat credit demand against the appellant is not sustainable and the demand was set-aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. 6. In the light of above observations and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in the above mentioned appeals, I am of the view that this matter is covered by the said decision. When this Tribunal has already decided that Cenvat demand confirmed against the main appellant is not sustainable then penalty against the person Shri Jeetendra Bhutra is also not sustainable. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order through which the penalty was imposed is liable to be set-aside. 7. As a result, the impugned order imposing penalty on the appellant is set- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
