Tribunal overturns penalty, citing lack of appellant's knowledge of manufacturer's illegal activities.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not justified. It was determined that the appellant had no knowledge of the clandestine activities of the manufacturer to whom they supplied raw materials. The Tribunal referred to relevant case law and concluded that the appellant should not be penalized for the manufacturer's illegal actions. As a result, the appeal was granted, and consequential relief was provided to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for supplying raw materials to a manufacturer involved in clandestine activities. The appellant argued that the penalty cannot be imposed for the manufacturer's illegal activities. The advocate cited relevant case laws to support the appellant's case.

The Revenue contended that the penalty can be imposed under Rule 26 even if the person did not directly deal with the excisable goods but supplied raw materials used in clandestine activities. Both sides presented their arguments before the Tribunal.

After examining the case records, it was found that the appellant supplied raw materials to the manufacturer, M/s. J.M. Copper, both on bills and without bills. However, there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant was aware of the clandestine activities of the manufacturer. The appellant did not deal with the goods manufactured clandestinely. The Tribunal referred to Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which specifies the conditions for imposing penalties on individuals involved in dealing with excisable goods liable for confiscation.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not have knowledge of the illegal activities related to the raw materials supplied. Citing the case law of Ashok Joshi vs. Commissioner Central Excise, Jaipur, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed on the appellant was not justified. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted consequential relief.

In the operative part of the order, the Tribunal pronounced the decision to allow the appeal filed by the appellant, with any necessary consequential relief.

---