Wire rod dealer held liable for knowingly dealing with non-duty paid goods under Rule 26

CESTAT Kolkata dismissed the appeal in a clandestine removal case involving wire rods. The appellant was held liable under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 based on voluntary statements admitting receipt of non-duty paid goods, supported by computer ledger evidence from co-accused's hard disk. The tribunal found the appellant knowingly dealt with non-duty paid goods, making them liable for penalty. The statement was never retracted and no coercion was alleged, establishing voluntary character. The appeal was dismissed with penalty upheld.

---

---

Issues involved: Central Excise duty evasion, Penalty imposition u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, Reliance on case laws for defense.

Summary:
The appellant, a proprietary firm engaged in manufacturing and trading activities, was issued a show cause notice for clandestinely procuring wire rods without duty payment. The appellant challenged the orders passed by the Commissioner (A) citing lack of corroborative evidence and failure to establish mens rea for penalty imposition. The appellant relied on case laws to support their defense.

The Anti-Evasion case against the appellant was based on specific intelligence and documents retrieved from another entity. The appellant admitted to receiving wire rods without proper documentation and selling the finished goods in the market. The appellant's involvement in the procurement and sale of non-duty paid goods was established through various pieces of evidence.

The appellant's contention that they cannot be held liable based solely on a co-accused's statement was refuted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized the voluntary nature of the appellant's admission and the presence of multiple corroborative pieces of evidence supporting the charges.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's reliance on certain case laws, highlighting the differences in circumstances. Various legal precedents were cited to emphasize the validity of voluntary statements and the consequences of delayed retractions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found the appellant knowingly dealt with non-duty paid goods and upheld the lower authority's decision to dismiss the appeal. The appellant's actions rendered them liable for penal consequences under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

The appeal was dismissed, and the lower authority's order was upheld.

---