2016 (4) TMI 1071

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ether Tribunal is correct in holding that the penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be imposed on a juristic person, which requires the person to deal with the goods, with the knowledge that they are liable for confiscation under the Central Excise Law, by disregarding the binding judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 209A, though the petitioner has not dealt with any goods, which are held to be liable for confiscation and the raw materials supplied by them are not liable for confiscation at all under Central Excise Act/Rules, which is the requirement for imposing penalty under Rule 209A? 3. Whether the Tribunal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... against the appellant who was only an importer, on the ground that there was a violation of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This show cause notice resulted in an order in original No.13/2001 dated 30.3.2001 by which a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- was imposed upon the appellant. The said order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter by the CESTAT by order dated 4.7.2014. It is against these orders that the appellant is before us. 6. At the outset, we do not know what was the violation committed by the appellant and how Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules is attracted in the case on hand. Admittedly, the appellant was an importer. Admittedly, he cleared the goods after payment of duty of excise. 7. Rule 209A....