2009 (5) TMI 844 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Bangalore: Penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs set aside under Rule 209A CE Rules, 1944.

G. SWARUPA RANI Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUPATHI

G. SWARUPA RANI Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUPATHI - 2010 (249) E.L.T. 382 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:Penalty imposition under Rule 209A of CE Rules, 1944.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore involved the issue of penalty imposition under Rule 209A of CE Rules, 1944. The appellant was penalized Rs. 10 lakhs based on the Commissioner's finding that the appellant, through Smt. Swaroopa Rani, had acquired, possessed, and sold goods liable for confiscation without proper documentation. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that Smt. Swaroopa Rani had only purchased 5 packages of the goods, which was deemed insufficient to hold her liable for the penalty under Rule 209A. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence implicating her in the alleged offenses, leading to the conclusion that the penalty was disproportionately high and unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.This judgment highlights the importance of establishing a clear link between the accused party's actions and the alleged offenses to justify the imposition of penalties under relevant rules. In this case, the Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence of complicity in unlawful activities before penalizing an individual or entity. The decision underscores the principle of proportionality in penalty imposition, ensuring that sanctions are commensurate with the level of involvement in the purported wrongdoing. By scrutinizing the facts and evidentiary support, the Tribunal upheld the standard of fairness and due process in adjudicating penalty matters within the realm of central excise regulations.