TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (8) TMI 392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [Order]. - This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 30-9-2004 which upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty under Rule 26 of the appellant. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant in this case is brand owner of the brand 'R.K.' He supplied empty cartons to different manufacturers of iron wooden screw. These manufacturers after manufact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y and upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 is not warranted in this case inasmuch that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had fulfilled the conditions laid down under Rule 26 for imposition of penalty on him. It is his submission that the appellant had, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the appellant claiming benefit of SSI exemption notification. I find from the record that nowhere in the statement of the manufacturers or the appellant it has been brought out that the appellant instigated the manufacturer to avail the benefit of SSI exemption. The appellant's case is very clear that he had first placed the order for iron wooden screw and supplied his packing material for pack....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter." From the plain reading of the above said Rule it can be seen that in order to impose the penalty it has to be proved that the appellant had reason to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation. In this case I find that none of the statements recorded by the authorities indicate to the fact that the current appellant was aware that the goods are not eligible for exemption notificatio....