9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Kamdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Indore (Noticee No. 3) E/1997/2002 Rs. 25 lakhs Sh. Keshavan Nair Authorised Signatory of the above Company (Noticee No. 6) E/1998/2002 Rs. 50,000/- Sh Vishal Agarwal, Prop., Vishal Transport Service, Indore (Noticee No. 10) E/1999/2002 Rs. 50,000/- Vishal Transport Service, Indore (Noticee No. 9) E/2000/2002 Rs. 50 lakhs M/s. Yash Marketing Co., Indore (Noticee No. 4) E/2458/2002 Rs. 25 lakhs Sh. Paras Vora, Yash Marketing Co., Indore (Noticee No. 7) E/2459/2002 Rs. 50,000/- Sh. Ajit Singh Bhatia, Bhatia Agencies, Indore (Noticee No. 8) E/2186/2002 Rs. 50,000/- M/s. Bhatia Agencies Indore (Noticee No. 5) E/2518/2002 The finding recorded against M/s. Kamdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be validly imposed on any person only if it was found, on the basis of reliable evidence, that he had physically dealt with any excisable goods, knowing or believing that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Central Excise Act or Rules. In support, the learned Counsel cited the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (i) S.R. Foils Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (138) E.L.T. 719 (Tri. - Del.)] (ii) Godrej Boyce & Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. CCE [2002 (148) E.L.T. 161 (T) = 2002 (103) ECR 770 (Tri.)] (iii) A.M. Kulkarni & Ors. v. CCE [2003 (56) RLT 573 (CEGAT - Mum.)] (iv) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Senior Advocate and further submitted that natural justice was denied to his clients by the adjudicating authority inasmuch as it passed the impugned order without giving them any opportunity of being personally heard. The SDR reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. 3.1 In Appeal Nos. 1997-2000, we note that there is a challenge to the Commissioner's order on the ground of violation of natural justice. It has been stated that, before the appellants could reply to the show cause notice, the Commissioner passed the order without giving them any hearing. The Commissioner noted in his order that the appellants had neither replied to the show cause notice nor appeared for personal hearing on 29-10-2001 and 30-10-2001. He also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the various ways of dealing with goods, specifically mentioned in the rule. The expression "any other manner" should be understood in accordance with the principle of ejusdem generis and would, then, mean "any other mode of physically dealing with the goods". This position has been recognized in Godrej Boyce & Mfg. Co. (supra) which has been followed in A.M. Kulkarni (supra). The decision in Ram Nath Singh (supra) is also to the same effect. Any person to be penalized under the above rule should also be shown to have been concerned in physically dealing with excisable goods with the knowledge or belief that the goods are liable to confiscation under the Act/Rules. He should have done the act with mens rea. We have held so in S.R. Foils ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssential requisites for penalty under Rule 209A. There is no finding that the appellants had dealt with any excisable goods in any manner specified or contemplated under Rule 209A, let alone any finding of mens rea. 3.3 As regards the penalties imposed on Paras Vora and Ajit Singh Bhatia as partners of the respective firms, these penalties were imposed in addition to the like penalties imposed on the firms and hence cannot be sustained in view of the settled law on the point vide B.C. Sharma (supra), Chandrakant Sanghvi (supra) and Harish Dye & Ptg. Works (supra). The same is the case with the penalty imposed on Vishal Agarwal in addition to that imposed on his proprietorship viz. Vishal Transport Service. 4. In the light of our findings, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
