TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether excisable goods received without a proper invoice were liable to confiscation and redemption fine under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001; and (ii) whether penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 was sustainable against the buyer-trader.
Issue (i): Whether excisable goods received without a proper invoice were liable to confiscation and redemption fine under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001.
Analysis: The goods were received without a proper invoice and the document covering the consignment had been taken back by the supplier. Rule 25(1) permits confiscation of goods removed without payment of duty by a manufacturer, registered warehouse keeper, or registered dealer. On those facts, the goods were treated as liable to confiscation and, once seized from the appellant, redemption on payment of fine was upheld.
Conclusion: The confiscation of the goods and levy of redemption fine were sustained against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 was sustainable against the buyer-trader.
Analysis: Rule 26 applies to a person who acquires, transports, keeps, sells, purchases, or otherwise deals with excisable goods knowing or having reason to believe that they are liable to confiscation. The appellant, as an experienced trader, was found to have received goods without invoice and to have abetted the clandestine removal by the supplier. That finding brought the appellant within the penal provision.
Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the appellant was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was found to be in accordance with law, and the appeal failed in full.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods received without a proper invoice may be confiscated where the statutory conditions for liability are satisfied, and a trader who knowingly deals with such goods or has reason to believe they are liable to confiscation is liable to penalty under Rule 26.
TaxTMI 
