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>Tribunal drops penalties on Appellants due to lack of evidence, overturns Rule 209A penalties.</h1> <h3>M/s Golden Tobacco Ltd., M/s Chinar Cigarettes (P) Ltd. Versus CGST, Delhi</h3> M/s Golden Tobacco Ltd., M/s Chinar Cigarettes (P) Ltd. Versus CGST, Delhi - 2019 (370) E.L.T. 1036 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:1. Imposition of duty and penalties on the assessee-Appellants.2. Allegations of clandestine removal of cigarettes.3. Validity of duplicate invoices and entries.4. Imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.5. Violation of principles of natural justice.Detailed Analysis:1. Imposition of Duty and Penalties:The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 09.07.2010, which demanded duty and imposed penalties on various assessees. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter for a fresh decision, leading to the current impugned order.2. Allegations of Clandestine Removal of Cigarettes:The Department conducted searches in 1993 and later in 1995, alleging unaccounted receipt of material and clandestine removal of cigarettes. However, the learned Chartered Accountant argued that no evidence was found to support these allegations. The Department's claims were based on duplicate invoices and entries, which were allegedly used to obtain bank loans.3. Validity of Duplicate Invoices and Entries:The assessee-Appellants contended that duplicate invoices were accommodation bills for financial arrangements, not for actual physical movement of goods. The Department, however, maintained that these duplicate bills indicated actual movement of goods without payment of excise duty. The Tribunal noted that the duplicate bills were generated for financial purposes and not for the physical movement of goods.4. Imposition of Penalty under Rule 209A:Rule 209A penalizes those dealing with excisable goods liable for confiscation. The Tribunal observed that the manufacture of cigarettes was under strict physical control of the Excise Department, and no evidence of clandestine removal was found. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Audh Sugar Mills, which held that physical control units could not be accused of clandestine removal without unimpeachable evidence. The Tribunal also cited various case laws supporting the non-imposition of penalties under Rule 209A in the absence of physical dealing with goods.5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The Tribunal noted a violation of natural justice as no opportunity for cross-examination of departmental witnesses was provided. However, considering the time elapsed since the disputed period (1989-1993), the Tribunal decided against remanding the matter for further evidence collection.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the Department failed to provide strict evidence of clandestine removal, such as unaccounted raw material, extra electricity consumption, or transportation of goods. Consequently, the penalties imposed under Rule 209A were set aside, and the appeals filed by the assessee-Appellants were allowed.Result:The impugned order was set aside, and the penalties imposed on the assessee-Appellants were dropped. The appeals were allowed, and the judgment was pronounced in the open court on 21.05.2018.
TaxTMI 