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>Appeal Dismissed in Penalty Challenge for Alleged Abetment of Excise Duty</h1> <h3>Commissioner, Central Excise Versus Shri V.K. Tulsian, Chartered Accountant</h3> Commissioner, Central Excise Versus Shri V.K. Tulsian, Chartered Accountant - TMI Issues:Applicability of Rule 26 and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 for imposing a penalty against the respondent for alleged abetment of evasion of excise duty.Analysis:The appeal challenged the Tribunal's order regarding the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50 Lacs on the respondent for allegedly abetting the evasion of excise duty. The appellant argued that the respondent, as an auditor, issued a certificate regarding the source of recovered funds during proceedings, which led to the penalty. The Tribunal initially did not exonerate the respondent from the alleged abetment, but in a subsequent decision, it found that Rule 26 and 27 were not applicable as the respondent had no role in the clearance of goods without payment of excise duty. The appellant contended that the certificate issued by the respondent allowed the trader to explain the evasion of excise duty, making it an act of abetment under Rule 26(2)(ii).Upon review, the Court found that the Tribunal's order stated that the respondent did not act as an abettor in any alleged offense under Rule 26. The allegation against the respondent seemed to be related to money laundering, which did not attract a penalty under Rule 26. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning that the issuance of the certificate by the respondent did not involve any direct dealing with excisable goods but was obtained during penalty proceedings. Therefore, the act did not fall under Rule 26 or 27, although it could raise separate issues like money laundering or providing incorrect evidence for the trader's benefit. The Court concluded that no substantial legal question existed to entertain the appeal.Additionally, the Court noted that as the original liability was under remand by the Tribunal in the trader's appeal, the penalty could not have been imposed. The decision on the original liability was pending in a separate appeal before the Court, but it did not impact the current issue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with the observations provided.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
