Appellant Company's Duty Penalty Upheld Despite Director's Involvement

The appellant company accepted duty liability, interest, and a 25% penalty on the duty for clandestine removal of fabrics. The waiver of the remaining penalty was sought but deemed unnecessary as all due amounts were paid within the specified time frame. The penalty imposed on the Director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was upheld due to involvement with offending goods, despite the absence of explicit mention of confiscation in the show cause notice. The penalty of Rs. 10,000 was considered justified. The appeals were rejected based on the outlined discussions and findings in the judgment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Clandestine removal of man-made processed fabrics
2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the Director of the appellant Company

Analysis:
1. The case involves the clandestine removal of man-made processed fabrics. The appellant company has accepted the duty liability, interest, and a 25% penalty on the duty. These amounts have been paid within 30 days of the original order. The appellant seeks a waiver of the remaining penalty amount. The adjudicating authority had specified that payment within 30 days, along with a 25% penalty, would suffice, making a separate order for waiving the balance penalty unnecessary. Since all due amounts have been paid within the specified time frame, the waiver of the balance penalty is not required in the interest of justice.

2. The issue of imposing a penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the Director of the appellant Company is addressed. Rule 26 stipulates that any person involved in dealing with excisable goods believed to be liable to confiscation shall be subject to a penalty. The show cause notice explicitly proposed imposing a penalty on the Director for his involvement with processed fabrics deemed offending and liable to confiscation. The original adjudicating authority found the Director liable for penalty due to his involvement with the offending goods. While the show cause notice did not explicitly mention confiscation, the nature of the offense and the liability for confiscation were clearly indicated. The imposition of the penalty was deemed justified based on the specific allegations and findings. The absence of a specific proposal for confiscation does not negate the penalty imposition, as long as there is evidence that the goods were offending and liable to confiscation. The penalty amount of Rs. 10,000 was considered appropriate given the duty evasion and the nature of the offense.

In conclusion, the appeals were rejected based on the discussions and findings outlined in the judgment.

---