Case Law Details
Rahul Chauhan Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Allahabad)
We find that this appellant is neither a Director nor an employee of M/s Musk Tobacco. Further, he is not connected either as a supplier or buyer of finished goods. Only he has provided space in his residence to store the documents of M/s Musk Tobacco, without any knowledge that this relates to clandestine production and removal by M/s Musk Tobacco. Further, this appellant has given a cogent explanation with regard to the documents, registers, loose papers etc. found at his residence that these are regarding „Indira Awas Yojna‟ and birth/ death record of the Gram Panchayat. Further, stated that blank papers, bill book, bilty book have been purchased by his brother for use in his grocery shop from waste paper merchant. Such explanation has not been found to be untrue. Accordingly, we find that this appellant is also not liable to penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules as he has not done nor has been concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, etc., of excisable goods. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty imposed on this appellant.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT ALLAHABAD ORDER
Heard the parties.
2. These appeals arise from common impugned order-in-original by which penalties have been imposed on these appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, which are as follows:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
