KALURAM RAMDAYAL HEDA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND S.T., RAJKOT
LAWS(CE)-2015-3-8
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 10,2015

Kaluram Ramdayal Heda Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of Central Excise And S.T., Rajkot Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

R.S. MAKKAR VS. CCE,SURAT [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK JOSHI VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

H.K. Thakur, Member (T) - (1.)THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against Order -in -Appeal No. 68 -69/2011/COMMR -A -/CMC/RAJ dated 30.03.2011 under which a penalty of Rs. 2 Lakh imposed upon the appellant by the adjudicating authority was upheld.
(2.)SHRI P.V. Sheth (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that penalty of Rs. Two lakh has been imposed upon the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It was his case that appellant has supplied certain raw materials to the manufacturers M/s. J.M. Copper Rajkot either on bills or without bills. That penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can not be imposed for the clandestine activities made by the manufacturer to whom the appellant supplied the raw materials. Learned Advocate relied upon the following case laws: -
(a) Ashok Joshi vs. CCE Jaipur [ : 2003 (157) ELT 304 (Tri. Del.)]

(b) R.S. Makkar vs. CCE, Surat [2014 (312) ELT 427 Tri. Ahmd.)]

(3.)SHRI Lalatendu Patra (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that for imposing penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, it is not necessary that the person should have dealt with the excisable goods when appellant has supplied the raw materials to the manufacturer M/s. J.M. Copper, which were used in the clandestine manufacture and clearance of the goods.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.