TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the penalties imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were sustainable in the absence of a finding that the appellants physically dealt with excisable goods knowing or having reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation; (ii) Whether the plea of violation of natural justice was made out.
Issue (i): Whether the penalties imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were sustainable in the absence of a finding that the appellants physically dealt with excisable goods knowing or having reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation.
Analysis: Penalty under Rule 209A requires proof that a person acquired possession of, or was concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling, purchasing, or otherwise physically dealing with excisable goods, with knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. The expression "any other manner" was treated as confined by ejusdem generis to other modes of physical dealing with goods. The findings recorded against the appellants only alleged connivance or facilitation of fraudulent availment of Modvat credit and did not establish the essential ingredients of the rule, including mens rea.
Conclusion: The penalties under Rule 209A were unsustainable and were set aside, in favour of the appellants.
Issue (ii): Whether the plea of violation of natural justice was made out.
Analysis: The record showed that the appellants neither replied to the show cause notice nor responded to the hearing notices, and that these factual observations of the adjudicating authority were not controverted in the appeals. On that basis, the complaint of denial of personal hearing could not be accepted.
Conclusion: The plea of violation of natural justice was rejected, against the appellants.
Final Conclusion: The penalties on all appellants were ultimately annulled because the statutory requirements for penalty under Rule 209A were not established, and the appeals succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be imposed only when there is a finding of physical dealing with excisable goods coupled with knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation; mere connivance or facilitation, without proof of those essentials, is insufficient.
TaxTMI 
