2015 (11) TMI 1341 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal Overturns Penalty on Chartered Accountant, Rule 26 Not Applicable

V.K. Tulsian, Chartered Accountant Versus CCE-Lucknow

V.K. Tulsian, Chartered Accountant Versus CCE-Lucknow - 2015 (329) E.L.T. 810 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Duty evasion and clandestine clearances of Gutka2. Seizure of cash and claim of share application money3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002Issue 1: Duty evasion and clandestine clearances of GutkaThe case involves M/s. Shyam Traders being suspected of large-scale duty evasion through unaccounted manufacture and clandestine clearances of Gutka. Following a search operation, a substantial amount of cash was seized from the residential premises of the proprietor, leading to suspicions of unaccounted sales. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the claim that the seized cash was share application money received from investors for a different venture, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the funds.Issue 2: Seizure of cash and claim of share application moneyThe seized cash from the residential premises was claimed to be share application money for a separate company, supported by a certificate from a Chartered Accountant. However, statements from individuals associated with the investing companies indicated that the entries were fictitious, raising concerns about the authenticity of the claimed source of the cash. This discrepancy formed the basis for initiating a show cause notice against M/s. Shyam Traders and individuals involved.Issue 3: Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002The Commissioner's adjudication order imposed penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002 on various parties, including the Chartered Accountant who issued the certificate regarding the seized cash. The appeal contested the applicability of Rule 26 to the Chartered Accountant, arguing that the alleged activities did not align with the provisions of the rule. The defense highlighted that the Chartered Accountant had no direct involvement in handling excisable goods or activities specified under Rule 26, emphasizing the lack of grounds for imposing the penalty.In the final judgment, the Appellate Tribunal examined the allegations against the Chartered Accountant and concluded that the penal provisions of Rule 26 were not applicable in this case. The Tribunal emphasized that the Chartered Accountant's actions, even if considered in favor of the department's allegations, did not align with the scope of Rule 26, which pertains to dealing with excisable goods in specific manners. The Tribunal also clarified that the cited precedent from the High Court regarding penalty imposition was not directly relevant to the Chartered Accountant's situation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the Chartered Accountant, ruling in favor of the appeal.