TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty as penalty within a period of 30 days of issuing of the show cause notice. A Penalty of Rs. 15,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant is in appeal against the order of imposition of penalty on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Rules, 2002. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case a common show cause notice was issued to the appellant as well as the M/s. Sadbhavana Enterprises and as per the provisions to Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1994 which states that if duty, interest and 25 per cent penalty equivalent to duty has been paid by the main party, then proceedings against all the parties comes to an end. Therefore, the penalty on the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice, the adjudication proceedings come to an end. Further, the contention of the ld. AR is that the appellant has been issued show cause notice separately, I have gone through the show cause notice, the same show cause notice has been issued to M/s Sadbhavana Enterprises and in the said show cause notice the appellant has made party to impose penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has been issued a separate show cause notice. In fact, proceedings have been initiated against the M/s Sadbhavana Enterprises and the appellant has made party to the said show cause notice to impose penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The ld. AR has strongly relied on the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o to sub-section (2) are qualified by the expression "to whom Notice are served in sub-section (1)", the words "other person" would not cover, those persons who have been show caused by the same show cause notice for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 and as such the words "other persons" would include only the persons from whom the duty not paid, short paid and erroneously refunded is to be recovered. With due respect, in my view, this view of the Tribunal in the case of Anand Agrawal (supra) cannot be treated as correct, as in term of Section 13 of General Clauses Act, 1897, in Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, the words in singular shall include the plural and vice versa and, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly dealt with the excisable goods, liable for confiscation in the manner mentioned in Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and for this reason have been show caused for imposition of penalty under this Rule, either in the notice under Section 11A(1) issued to the person chargeable with duty or by separate notices issued in this regard. This interpretation would make sense, as when the proceedings against the manufacturer/assessee stand concluded on payment of disputed amount of duty plus interest plus 25% of the duty as penalty, there would be no sense in continuing the proceedings for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 against other persons like traders who had purchased the goods, transporters who had transported the goods cleare....