Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Capital Traders, M/S. Mayur Auto ... vs Cce, Jaipur on 4 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(76)ECC97
ORDER
C.N.B. Nair
1. All these applications are directed against Order-in-Original No.35/2000 dated 1.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. of Central Excise, Jaipur. Penalties have been imposed on the appellants under the r order.These applications seek stay of recovery of the penalties.
2. The learned Counsel representing the applicants has submitted that the applicants are mere Traders of automobile parts. They are not concerned with or responsible for payment of Central Excise Duty. Penalties have been imposed on these Traders under Rule 209 A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. On the basis that they had paid part of the price for the automobile parts purchased by them in cash, over and above the amount paid in Cheque. It has been submitted that the applicants paid the read/negotiated price for the goods they purchased. They were not aware t hat such payment rendered the goods liable to confiscation, a requirement under Rule 209 A for imposition of penalty. The learned Counsel also submitted that the main party in the case was M/s. Mayur Industries Ltd. who are the manufacturers of the automobile parts. He submitted that the manufacturer appellant had already deposited the entire duty amount payable on the goods and the penalty imposed on him. In the circumstances he sought waiver of the requirement for pre-deposit of penalties by t he dealers and stay of the recovery of such penalties.
3. The learned DR representing the Revenue submitted that they duty evasion had taken place on account of a deliberate strategy of collecting amounts over and above the listed price. We, therefore, submitted that imposition of penalty on the dealers was fully justified. He therefore, oppossed the stay applications.
4. The appellants are only dealers of automobile pars. Penalty will be warranted on the appellants only if it is approved that they had knowledge or had reason to believe the goods they were purchasing were liable to confiscation. It is the appellants contention that they made payments for the goods according to the negotiated prices and they were not aware about the non-payment of correct duty on the goods and that such non-payment of duty rendered the goods liable to confiscation. The main party to the proceeding has already deposited the entire duty amount payable on the goods and penalty due from them. In these circumstances, we consider it an appropriate case for grant of waiver of pre-deposit of penalties impose on these dealers. It is, accordingly, ordered that the Revenue shall not take any coercive action for the recovery of the amounts during the pendency of their appeals. The appeals of the present applicants shall be tagged with the main appeal i.e. E/185/2001-A filed by M/s. Mayur Industries Ltd. and all the appeals shall be heard together on 12.6.2001.
(Pronounced in the open Court)