TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of individuals in excise penalty case against Kashipur Sugar Mills Ltd.</h1> <h3>SK. Bhatnagar and RK. Agarwal Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II</h3> SK. Bhatnagar and RK. Agarwal Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II - 2015 (325) E.L.T. 538 (Uttarakhand) Issues:1. Imposition of excise duty against M/s Kashipur Sugar Mills Ltd.2. Personal penalties imposed on Mr. S.K. Bhatnagar and Mr. R.K. Agarwal under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.Imposition of Excise Duty:The case involved M/s Kashipur Sugar Mills Ltd. seeking exemption from Central Excise duty based on an increase in manufacturing capacity as per Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. The Commissioner, Central Excise, in the impugned order, ruled that routine maintenance and renovation do not constitute an enhancement of manufacturing capacity, leading to the imposition of excise duty on the company. This decision was challenged through writ petitions by the aggrieved parties, Mr. S.K. Bhatnagar and Mr. R.K. Agarwal.Personal Penalties under Rule 26:The Commissioner, Central Excise, not only imposed excise duty on M/s Kashipur Sugar Mills Ltd. but also levied personal penalties on Mr. S.K. Bhatnagar and Mr. R.K. Agarwal under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Rule 26 outlines penalties for specific offenses related to excisable goods. However, upon examination, it was found that the petitioners were not involved in any activities warranting penalties under Rule 26. They had not issued excise duty invoices without delivering goods or abetted in such actions, nor had they been engaged in transporting, removing, or depositing excisable goods liable for confiscation. The petitioners had legitimately claimed benefits under Notification No. 50/2003 C.E. dated 10.6.2003, which did not justify invoking Rule 26 against them.The court held that the personal penalties imposed on Mr. S.K. Bhatnagar and Mr. R.K. Agarwal were beyond the scope of Rule 26. Consequently, the petitions were allowed, and the orders imposing personal penalties on the petitioners were quashed.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of excise duty imposition and the personal penalties under Rule 26, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and the court's decision.
TaxTMI 