Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs Aurangabad / Nashik – II Vs. Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Ambadas Santosh Ngargoje, Harish kumar Harji vandas Gandhi, Shree Salasar Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
Appeal Number : [2016 (1) TMI 438 - CESTAT MUMBAI]
Date of Judgement/Order :
Related Assessment Year :

CA Bimal Jain

When proceedings against manufacturer stand concluded on payment of disputed amount of duty along with interest and penalty, no penalty would be imposable under Rule 26 of the Excise Rules on other persons like traders

CA Bimal JainFacts:

Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. (the Respondent) has settled the issue by paying the entire amount of duty liability, interest thereof and 25% of the duty as penalty imposed by the Department. However, the Department imposed penalty under Rule 26 of the Excise Rules on Ambadas Santosh Ngargoje, Harish kumar Harji vandas Gandhi, Shree Salasar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (the other Respondents) on the ground that there was clandestine removal in the case of the Respondent and the other Respondents played an important role in abetting such clandestine removal.

Held:

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai has relying upon the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Vs. Abir Steel Rolling Mills [2013 (7) TMI 405 – CESTAT NEW DELHI], held that when the proceedings against the Respondent stand concluded on payment of disputed amount of duty along with interest and 25% of the duty as penalty, there would be no sense in continuing the proceedings for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Excise Rules against the other Respondents like traders who had purchased the goods, transporters who had transported the goods cleared by the Respondent, the Directors/employees of the Respondent.

(Author can be reached at Email: bimaljain@hotmail.com)

Read Other Articles from CA Bimal Jain

More Under Excise Duty

Posted Under

Category : Excise Duty (3861)
Type : Articles (10816)
Tags : CA Bimal Jain (608) Cestat judgments (762)

Search Posts by Date