9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 illegally. 2. Examined the records and heard both sides. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant refers to the allegation as contained in the show-cause notice as also to the finding records by the original in its order, and submits that there was neither any allegation nor any finding by the original authority that the appellant had dealt with any excisable goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion under Rule 209A. 4. I have carefully examined the rival submissions. The original proposal in the show cause notice was to impose penalty on the appellant under certain other rules of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Subsequently, a corrigendum to the notice invoked Rules 209A and 210 for imposing penalty on the party. The allegation against the appellant was to the effect that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of such goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater." The above rule is explicit. The rule will be attracted only by those persons who engage themsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere for such breach. For invoking Rule 210, it has got to be shown by the departmental authorities that no other provision of law specifically prescribed any penalty for the violation alleged. It has got to be established that the noticee committed breach of any of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules so as to attract Rule 210. The department's allegation against the appellant, which has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
