9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 73Q of the Rules in hands of the Company are under challenge. The explanation tendered by respondent-assessee has not been met with by the adjudicating authority. As against that, the Tribunal has recorded that the requirement of Rule 209A of the Rules to show and bring on record that the officer had knowledge, is absent, and there is a categorical finding that the officers were not aware about the provisions to be followed, had no knowledge of Central Excise law, and upon being pointed out, had reversed the entry/debited the amounts. No substantial question of law arises. Appeal dismissed. - 1040 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2008 - D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ. [Judgment per : D.A. Mehta, J. (Oral)]. - The question, as proposed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty of Rs. 7,71,153/- was imposed upon the Company under Rule 173Q(1) of the Rules. Confiscation of land, building, plant, machinery etc. was also ordered. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- came to be imposed upon respondent-assessee under Rule 209A of the Rules. Ultimately, the matter reached Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (the Tribunal) by way of appeals filed by the Company and its employees, including the present respondent. 3. In relation to the personal penalties imposed on the officers of the Company, the Tribunal recorded the following finding : "(10) As regards the personal penalties on the officers of the appellants, I find that these penalties are imposed under provisions of Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion No. 2 in case of the Company, it was urged that the penalty deleted in hands of the Company on a technical plea has not been accepted and the appeal is pending. That, once the issue as to whether confiscation of goods was correctly made in hands of the Company is an issue which is open, the penalty, deleted in hands of respondent-assessee, as a consequence, is required to be raised as a substantial issue of law. Lastly, it was submitted that, on reading of the panchnama and the statement of respondent-assessee, it became apparent that the requirement of Rule 209A of the Rules regarding knowledge was fulfilled considering the fact that the goods were not only liable to confiscation, but confiscation has been upheld by the Tribunal. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de, by holding that, "As regards confiscation of the land, building, plant and machinery, etc., it is seen that the provisions of Rule 173Q(2)(a) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 would apply generally to the habitual offenders who have total disregard to the law. It is on record that in this case that the appellants' non-accountal of goods and other interactions are not with any intention to evade payment of duty, and hence, the appellants cannot be clubbed in the category of habitual offenders"; (iv) Penalty in case of the Company under Rule 173Q of the Rules has been set aside on the basis of an Apex Court decision referred to by the Tribunal. 8. The findings of the Tribunal in relation to deletion of penalty in hands of the respondent-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
