Director penalized under Rule 26 for non-duty paid goods, main appellant exempted. Penalties adjusted.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Rule 25 could not be imposed on the main appellant as they did not contravene rules with intent to evade duty. However, the Director was rightly penalized under Rule 26 for being aware of the non-duty paid nature of purchased goods. The penalties were adjusted accordingly, with the Director's penalty reduced to Rs. 50,000. The appeals by the appellants were disposed of based on the above decisions.

---

---

Issues:
Imposition of penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the main appellant and the Director.

Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty on Main Appellant:
The case involved penalties imposed on the main appellant and its Director for receiving and dealing with goods without payment of duty and documentation. The main appellant argued that penalty under Rule 25 cannot be imposed as they did not contravene any provisions with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal examined Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which applies to contraventions with intent to evade duty by producers, manufacturers, or registered dealers. Since the main appellant did not manufacture the goods and did not contravene any rules to evade duty, the penalty under Rule 25 was set aside.

2. Imposition of Penalty on Director:
Regarding the penalty on the Director, it was argued that there was no mention of goods being liable for confiscation in the proceedings. The Revenue contended that the Director should be aware of the duty status of purchased goods. The Tribunal found that the Director was aware that the goods were purchased without duty payment and documentation. As a representative of a registered unit, he should have known the central excise procedures. Thus, the penalty under Rule 26 was upheld, but reduced to Rs. 50,000 considering the circumstances. The Director's appeal was partially allowed, reducing the penalty imposed.

3. Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that penalties under Rule 25 could not be imposed on the main appellant as they did not contravene rules with intent to evade duty. However, the Director was rightly penalized under Rule 26 for being aware of the non-duty paid nature of purchased goods. The penalties were adjusted accordingly, with the Director's penalty reduced to Rs. 50,000. The appeals by the appellants were disposed of based on the above decisions.

---