Tribunal upholds penalty on broker for excisable goods violation, reduces amount

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Rule 26(1) of CER, 2002 on the broker for involvement in transporting and dealing with excisable goods without proper documentation or duty payment. However, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000 from the original amount. The Tribunal found the penalty justified based on evidence including confessional statements and documents recovered from the broker, noting the manufacturer did not dispute the Central Excise Duty demand related to the broker's actions. The appeal was partly allowed, with the decision announced on 12.04.2022.

---

---

Issues:
- Alleged evasion of Central Excise Duty through clandestine removal of re-rolled products
- Liability of the broker for penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002

Analysis:
1. Alleged Evasion of Central Excise Duty: The case involved an inquiry by the anti-evasion branch regarding the evasion of Central Excise Duty by certain re-rolling units. The investigation revealed clandestine removal of excisable goods facilitated by brokers without invoices or duty payment. Statements, notebooks, and diaries indicated cash transactions for goods. A show cause notice was issued, leading to the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalties by the adjudicating authority. The appeal against this order was rejected by the Commissioner (A), prompting the appellant to file the present appeal.

2. Liability of the Broker: The appellant, represented by a Chartered Accountant, argued that they acted solely as a broker and did not purchase or handle the goods in question. Referring to past cases where penalties were set aside for similar situations, the appellant sought relief from the penalty imposed under Rule 26. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that incriminating documents seized from the appellant's premises, along with admissions, established the appellant's involvement in transporting and dealing with excisable goods without proper documentation or duty payment. The Revenue maintained that the penalty was rightfully imposed under Rule 26(1) of CER, 2002.

3. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides and examining the records, found that the adjudicating authority had correctly imposed the penalty based on the evidence, including confessional statements and documents recovered from the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the manufacturer involved did not dispute the demand of Central Excise Duty related to the appellant's actions. While the appellant cited previous tribunal orders where penalties were set aside, the Tribunal distinguished those cases based on the lack of contestation by the manufacturer and the absence of third-party evidence challenges. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the penalty but reduced it to Rs. 50,000 considering the appellant's individual status and overall circumstances.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant. The decision was pronounced in open court on 12.04.2022.

---