Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Suresh Gupta vs C.C.E & S.T. Raipur on 6 April, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT III
Excise Appeal No.E/50153/2016-EX [SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.BHO-EXCUS-002-APP-205-15-16 dated 27.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Raipur]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Suresh Gupta Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E & S.T. Raipur Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri.Abhas Mishra, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri.R.K. Mishra, D.R.
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 06/04/2016
FINAL ORDER NO. 51156/2016
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
Imposition of penalty on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is the subject matter of present dispute.
2. Shri.Abhas Mishra, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that there is no specific allegation levelled against the appellant by the Department that it is involved in any clandestine activity with the intention to defraud the Govt. revenue. Thus, he submits that in absence of any categorical observations by the authorities below with regard to the involvement of the employee of the Company in the clandestine activities, imposition of penalty under Rule 26 is not proper and justified. To support his above stand, the ld. Advocate relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Flex Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T. 301 (Tri. Del.).
3. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Mishra, ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4. I have heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.
5. I find that no specific allegation has been made by the authorities below holding that the appellant is involved in the clandestine activities with intent to defraud the Govt. Revenue. Merely because of the fact that the appellant is the Manager of the Company the rigor of Rule 26 ibid cannot be invoked automatically, justifying imposition of personal penalty, without specifically proving the fact regarding his involvement in the unlawful activities. In this context, I find support from the decision of this Tribunal relied on by the ld. Advocate for the appellant. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order and allow the appeal in favour of the appellant.
[Dictated and Pronounced in the Open Court] (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita ??
??
??
??
0 2