2008 (2) TMI 700

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion that the appellants has made himself liable for imposition of penalty, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held as under :- "Now coming to the gravity of offence, I find that the appellant had clandestinely removed MS ingots, which are not consumable goods but industrial input. When he sells the goods to SSPL without any accountal and without payment of duty, he knows that SSPL has likewise, to manufacture of other excisable goods from it without accountal and remove them without payment of duty. Thus, in the very process of evasion of duty by him, he paves the way or rather ensures that subsequent excisable goods are also to be cleared clandestinely. He stands to be an effective abator with full knowledge to the offence committed by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mposition of penalty on the appellants for aiding and abetting the purchaser of the goods for manufacturing of excisable goods without accounting and removing them clandestinely. He reiterates the finding of the adjudicating authority. 6. On perusal of the records it is seen that the penalty imposed on the appellants is under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. While imposing such penalty the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority has held that the current appellant had supplied non-duty paid MS ingots to their purchaser and hence they are equally responsible in adopting such type of malpractices. The provisions of Rule 26, imposing penalty for certain offences has to be read. I may ....