TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed on the individual respondents (Assistant Manager and Director) in the absence of a proposal for confiscation of goods.
Analysis: The appeals relate to allegations that certain goods were clandestinely cleared without payment of duty and that the individual respondents participated in such clearances. The Tribunal has already remanded classification and demand issues for de novo adjudication in respect of the manufacturer; the question of extended limitation was left to be determined on remand. The present issue examined in detail is whether personal penalties under Rule 26 can be sustained against the individual respondents where the show cause notice does not propose confiscation of the goods. The Tribunal notes Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 conditions imposition of the penalty on the goods being held liable for confiscation; the show cause notice in this matter contains no proposal for confiscation and there is no pleading or finding of financial enrichment of the individual respondents by reason of the alleged evasion.
Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is unsustainable against the individual respondents in the absence of any proposal for confiscation of goods; the Revenue appeals seeking imposition of penalty on the individuals are dismissed in favour of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
