2025 (6) TMI 1353 - AT - Central Excise

Rule 26(2) penalties under Central Excise Rules cannot be imposed on companies as artificial entities

M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited, Unit-II, M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited, M/s. Maa Shakumbari Sponge (P) Limited, M/s. Seven Star Steels Limited, M/s. Vishal Metallics Private Limited, M/s. Mahakali Ispat Private Limited, M/s. Swastik Ispat Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Kolkata

CESTAT Kolkata held that penalties under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be imposed on artificial entities. The case involved seven ... Levy of penalty u/r 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Irregular availment of CENVAT Credit merely on the basis of alleged paper transactions involving purchase of inputs and sale of final products without any actual underlying supply - HELD THAT:- As per the said Rule, any person who issues excise duty invoices without delivery of the goods can be penalized under the said provision. Therefore, from the said provisions, any person who is involved in the activity of issuing cenvatable invoices to the buyer enabling him to take CENVAT Credit without delivery of the goods is liable to be penalized under Rule 26(2) of the said Rules. In these circumstances, it is to be seen as to whether the appellants before us, being Limited Companies / Private Limited Companies, can be termed as “person” in terms of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or not. Admittedly, the appellants before us, namely, M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited, M/s. Rashmi Cement Limited, M/s. Maa Shakumbari Sponge Private Limited, M/s. Seven Star Steels Limited, M/s. Vishal Metallics Private limited, M/s. Mahakali Ispat Private Limited and M/s. Swastik Ispat Private Limited, are either Private Limited Companies or Limited Companies. These are artificial entities and not individuals. As it has been observed by way of various judicial pronouncements that penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules can only be imposed on an individual / naturally living person and not on an artificial entity, the appellants being artificial entities, penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be imposed on the appellants. In view of this, no penalty can be imposed on the appellants and accordingly, the penalties imposed on the appellants before us are set aside. Conclusion - The appellants, being Private Limited Companies or Limited Companies (artificial entities), cannot be subjected to penalty u/r 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside. The impugned order, qua imposition of penalties on the appellants stands modified - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question considered by the Tribunal is whether penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed on corporate entities (specifically Limited Companies and Private Limited Companies) alleged to have issued excise duty invoices without actual delivery of goods, thereby abetting irregular availment of CENVAT Credit by a third party. The Tribunal examined:Whether the appellants, as companies (artificial persons), qualify as 'person' under Rule 26(2) for imposition of penalty;The scope and applicability of Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in cases involving paper transactions without physical supply;The precedential position on imposition of penalty on corporate entities versus natural persons;The evidentiary basis and procedural propriety of the penalty imposed without investigation of appellants' supply chain and transporters;Whether penalty can be sustained on appellants who are alleged facilitators but not natural persons directly responsible for the alleged offence.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Interpretation and applicability of Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002The Tribunal extracted Rule 26(2), which penalizes 'any person' who issues excise duty invoices without delivery of goods or abets such issuance, resulting in ineligible benefit like wrongful CENVAT Credit. The provision contemplates penalty up to the amount of benefit or Rs. 5,000 whichever is greater.The Court reasoned that the Rule targets those involved in issuing cenvatable invoices enabling wrongful credit claims without actual supply. Thus, liability under Rule 26(2) arises if a person issues such invoice or abets the same.Issue 2: Whether companies (artificial persons) can be penalized under Rule 26(2)This issue was central to the appeals. The appellants contended that penalty under Rule 26(2) cannot be imposed on companies or body corporates as they are artificial persons and lack the mens rea or direct involvement required for penalty. They relied heavily on Tribunal and Supreme Court precedents including:Woodmen Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna (affirmed by Supreme Court) holding penalty cannot be imposed on firms or corporate entities;Apple Sponge and Power Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax;Goyal Pipes (P) Ltd. & ors. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Raipur;Steel Tubes of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Indore (Larger Bench decision).The Tribunal examined the reasoning in these precedents, particularly the Larger Bench decision in Steel Tubes of India Ltd., which elaborated on the distinction between natural persons and artificial entities in the context of penalty imposition. It was noted that while the term 'person' under the General Clauses Act includes companies, the corporate entity itself does not possess a mind or knowledge to be held liable for offences requiring mens rea. The acts of individuals (e.g., Board of Directors) do not automatically translate to acts of the company for penalty purposes unless the corporate veil is lifted to identify culpable persons.The Tribunal illustrated this principle by analogy to a scenario where a railway clerk commits an offence without the knowledge of Indian Railways as a corporate entity, thus absolving the corporation from penalty.Further, the Tribunal reiterated the position in Apple Sponge and Power Ltd. that penalty under Rule 26 can only be imposed on natural living persons who physically handle the goods or documents, not on companies.Issue 3: Application of law to facts and evidentiary considerationsThe appellants were suppliers of sponge iron to M/s. B.D. Ispat and were alleged to have issued invoices without actual supply, facilitating irregular CENVAT Credit claims by B.D. Ispat. However, the Revenue did not conduct any investigation into the appellants' supply chain or summon transporters engaged by them to verify genuineness of transactions. The penalty was imposed primarily on the basis of statements from transporters recorded during investigation against B.D. Ispat.The Tribunal noted the absence of any direct inquiry or verification of physical movement of goods by the appellants or their transporters, which undermined the basis for penalty. This procedural lacuna further weakened the case for imposing penalty on appellants.Issue 4: Treatment of competing argumentsThe Revenue argued that the appellants were involved in paper transactions and thus liable for penalty under Rule 26(2). The Tribunal, however, emphasized that the legal framework and precedents clearly restrict penalty under this Rule to natural persons and not to artificial entities. The Tribunal gave primacy to settled legal principles over the Revenue's contention.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held unequivocally that 'penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules can only be imposed on the natural individual person and not on the artificial entity or company.' It observed:'...penalties in case where it was levied on a firm or legal entity is not desirable. However, the penalty levied on individual or proprietorship firm can be sustained.''...the corporate entity being a person would be held responsible for the act of the natural persons. But in order to punish the guilty individuals, the veil of corporate entity had to be lifted to understand the correct picture.''...penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed only on the natural individual person and not on the artificial person or company because the goods is handled by natural living person and not by an artificial entity.'Applying these principles, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants, being Private Limited Companies or Limited Companies (artificial entities), cannot be subjected to penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside.The Tribunal thereby established the core principle that artificial entities, lacking independent volition and mens rea, are not liable to penalty under Rule 26(2) for issuance of excise duty invoices without delivery of goods. The liability for such penalty lies with natural persons responsible for the act, and the corporate veil must be pierced to identify and penalize such individuals.In sum, the Tribunal modified the impugned order by deleting the penalty imposed on the appellants and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.