Central Excise penalty rules: non-registered dealers escape Rule 25, while knowing participation in clandestine clearances attracts liability.

Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 applies only to the specified classes of persons, so a penalty cannot be imposed on an entity that is not a registered dealer; that penalty was deleted. Registered dealers who knowingly participated in transactions involving clandestinely cleared goods remained liable even though no credit was actually availed, because Rule 25 covers contraventions tied to removal of goods without invoice; their penalties were therefore sustained, subject to reduction on facts. Individuals who facilitated delivery and collection of payments with knowledge of the offending arrangement attracted liability under Rule 26, and the penalties on the partner/director were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be imposed on an entity which was not a registered dealer; (ii) whether registered dealers who participated in the transaction without availing credit could still be penalised for dealing with clandestinely cleared goods; and (iii) whether the penalties on the individual partner/director were sustainable under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Issue (i): whether penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be imposed on an entity which was not a registered dealer.

Analysis: Rule 25 is confined to the categories specifically named in the provision, namely producer, manufacturer, registered person of a warehouse, importer, and registered dealer. The provision contemplates penalty only against a person falling within those categories. Where the appellant did not fall within the statutory class of a registered dealer, the essential precondition for invoking Rule 25 was absent.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 25 could not be imposed on the non-registered dealer, and the demand of penalty against that appellant was set aside.

Issue (ii): whether registered dealers who participated in the transaction without availing credit could still be penalised for dealing with clandestinely cleared goods.

Analysis: The transaction structure showed that the appellants entered into an intermediary arrangement with knowledge that the assessable value was being suppressed to the extent of the commission component. Rule 25 is not limited to cases where credit is actually availed or passed on; a registered dealer who deals with goods removed in contravention of the rules remains exposed to penalty. Accepting the contrary view would defeat the provision in cases of clandestine clearance without invoice.

Conclusion: The registered dealers were liable to penalty, but the quantum was reduced on facts.

Issue (iii): whether the penalties on the individual partner/director were sustainable under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis: The individuals were found to have participated in the arrangement by facilitating delivery and receiving payments, and the claimed dealership was held to be a device for recovery of dues rather than a genuine trade arrangement. Their knowledge of the offending transaction was inferred from the manner in which the goods were handled and payments were collected. On those facts, Rule 26 was attracted.

Conclusion: The penalties on the individual partner/director were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of deleting the penalty on the non-registered dealer and reducing the penalties on the registered dealers, while the penalties on the individual appellants were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is confined to the statutorily specified classes of persons, but a registered dealer can be penalised for dealing with clandestinely removed goods even if credit is not actually availed, and participation with knowledge in such a transaction attracts liability under Rule 26.

---