Rule 26 penalties fail without a confiscation basis, while disputed double recovery demands require verification of records.

Penalties on co-appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were unsustainable because no confiscation was proposed or upheld in relation to the pattern and dies, and the transaction was covered by Notification No. 67/1995-C.E.; the penal basis therefore failed and the penalties were set aside. The duty demand on the main appellant, said to arise from double recovery of amortised cost of pattern and dies from buyers, turned on verification of invoices and records; as the factual material required examination, the demand was set aside for the present and remanded for fresh decision after verification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalties imposed on the co-appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were sustainable when no confiscation was proposed or sustained in respect of the pattern and dies and the transaction was covered by Notification No. 67/1995-C.E.; (ii) Whether the duty demand on the main appellant, based on alleged recovery of amortised cost of pattern and dies from buyers, could be sustained without verification of the invoices and records.

Issue (i): Whether penalties imposed on the co-appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were sustainable when no confiscation was proposed or sustained in respect of the pattern and dies and the transaction was covered by Notification No. 67/1995-C.E.

Analysis: The penalties on the co-appellants were linked to the alleged liability of the pattern and dies to confiscation. The adjudication record did not sustain any proposal or finding of confiscation, and the one-time payment made towards pattern and dies was accepted as covered by the exemption for captive use under Notification No. 67/1995-C.E. In that situation, the foundation for imposing penal consequences on the co-appellants did not survive.

Conclusion: The penalties on the co-appellants were not sustainable and were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand on the main appellant, based on alleged recovery of amortised cost of pattern and dies from buyers, could be sustained without verification of the invoices and records.

Analysis: The main controversy was factual, namely whether the amortised cost had been recovered twice from buyers. Sample invoices were produced, but the records needed verification by the adjudicating authority to determine the correctness of the demand. As the issue depended on examination of the appellant's records and invoices, a final finding on duty liability could not be recorded at that stage.

Conclusion: The duty demand against the main appellant was set aside for the present and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification and fresh decision in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The order against the co-appellants was vacated, and the duty demand issue concerning the main appellant was sent back for reconsideration on the limited factual question of double recovery of amortised cost.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalties under Rule 26 cannot be sustained in the absence of a surviving confiscation-related basis, and a duty demand depending on disputed factual recovery of cost must be decided after verification of the assessee's records.

---