Tribunal Upholds Penalty for Clandestine Goods Removal

The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs.75,000 imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for his active involvement in clandestine removal of goods as an authorized signatory at M/s.Kishore Tobacco Company. Despite the appellant's denial of mastermind involvement and plea for a reduced penalty, the Tribunal found sufficient evidence, including statements and physical stock discrepancies, to support the penalty imposition. The decision emphasized individual accountability in regulatory compliance, affirming the penalty and dismissing the appellant's appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Penalty confirmation under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 against the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the confirmed penalty of Rs.75,000 under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The case involved a shortage of finished goods found during a search at M/s.Kishore Tobacco Company, where the appellant was an authorized signatory. The appellant was accused of clandestine removal of goods based on recovered kaccha slips and statements. The show cause notices led to the penalty imposition, initially set at Rs.1 lakh and later reduced to Rs.75,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued being a mere employee following instructions, denying mastermind involvement and requesting a further reduction in the penalty to Rs.2,000. The respondent contended that the appellant's statement and physical stock taking confirmed his active role in clandestine activities, supported by the owner's statement. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the appellant's involvement but reduced the penalty amount. The Tribunal, after reviewing the statements and evidence, concluded that the appellant's active engagement in clandestine removal was established, upholding the penalty. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the impugned order.

This case hinged on whether the appellant, as an authorized signatory, was directly involved in the clandestine removal of goods, as alleged. The appellant's statement, recorded during the investigation, detailed his responsibilities at M/s.Kishore Tobacco Company, including handling excise matters and preparing production slips. The statement indicated the appellant's knowledge of unaccounted goods sold for cash without proper documentation, corroborated by the owner's statement. The Tribunal found the appellant's involvement in preparing kaccha slips and clearing goods against cash without recording them in the Daily Stock Account Register, supporting the penalty imposition. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's role as an authorized signatory did not absolve him of active participation in the illicit activities, leading to the rejection of the appeal and upholding of the penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision underscored the appellant's direct involvement in clandestine activities despite being an authorized signatory, as evidenced by the statements and corroborating evidence. The Tribunal deemed the penalty imposition valid under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, based on the established facts of the case. The judgment highlighted the importance of individual accountability in regulatory compliance, irrespective of the official position held within a company.

---