Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Jitendra Chauhan vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Noida on 1 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
REGIONAL BENCH : ALLAHABAD
Appeal No.E/2830/2006-EX[DB]
Arising out of Order-in-Original No.06/Commissioner/Noida/2006 dated 30.05.2006 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Noida.
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HONBLE MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? : No
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order? : Seen
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? : Yes
Jitendra Chauhan
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida
RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE:
Shri Atul Gupta & Shri Hrishikesh, Advocates for the Appellant (s) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Department CORAM:
HONBLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) DATE OF HEARING & PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.11.2016 FINAL ORDER NO.- 71034/2016__ _ Per Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar:
The present appeal is preferred against Order-in-Original No.06/Commissioner/NOIDA/2006 dated 30.05.2006.
2. The appellant was employee of M/s Inalsa Appliances Ltd., who were issued with a show-cause-notice dated 30.06.2005. The show cause notice had a proposal for demanding Central Excise duty, amounting to Rs.78,59,712/- from M/s Inalsa Appliances Ltd. under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The said Show cause notice also had a proposal to demand Central Excise duty, amounting to Rs.2,08,795/- under the same provisions. It further had a proposal to impose penalty on M/s Inalsa Appliances Ltd., who were the manufacturers. The show cause notice had a proposal to impose personal penalty on the appellant under Rule 209-A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original No.06/Commissioner/Noida/2006 dated 30.05.2006, wherein the Original Authority has stated that the appellant did not submit any defence apply nor appeared for hearing. The Original Authority has imposed a penalty of Rs.1 lakh on the appellant under Rule 209-A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rules 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant is before this Tribunal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who has taken us through the impugned show cause notice, Order-in-Original and provisions of said Rules, 209-A and Rule 26.
4. Heard the Ld. DR for Revenue who has supported the impugned Order-in-Original.
5. We have taken into consideration the rival contentions. We find that the penalty under Rule 209-A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002 can be imposed on a person who deals with the excisable goods liable for confiscation. We find from the impugned show cause notice that there was no proposal for confiscation of any goods. Therefore, it is clear that there were no goods, which were liable for confiscation. It is also clear that when the goods were not liable for confiscation, the appellant has not dealt with any goods which were liable for confiscation. Therefore, the appellant was not liable for imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 nor he was liable for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002. We, therefore, modify the impugned Order-in-Original to the extent that penalty on the appellant is set aside. In the above manner, the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open Court)
SD/ SD/
(ANIL CHOUDHARY) (ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Mishra
3
Appeal No.E-2830/06