TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 915
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Mishra, (DR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellants are in appeals against the impugned order imposing penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The facts of the case are that an investigation was conducted at the end of the manufacturer buyer to whom the main appellant issued invoices. The allegation of the Revenue is that as the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not imposable. He further submits that during the relevant period the provisions of Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were not in the statute to impose the penalty on the appellant. Therefore, penalty is not imposable as, as per the allegation of the Revenue the appellants have not dealt with the goods. To support his contention he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t imposable. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR oppose the contention of the ld. Counsel and submits that in this case on limitation the show cause notice can be issued within five years from the date of knowledge and admittedly in this case show cause notice has been issued within five years of the date of knowledge. Therefore, extended period of limitation is invokable. For imposition of penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or two thousand rupees, whichever is greater. Note : Quantum of penalty during ....