TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufactured these coils bearing the brand name of the appellant wrongly availing benefit of exemption notification No. 8/2003-CE, dated 01.03.2003. This exemption notification is not applicable to products manufactured with the brand name of another company. Accordingly, it was felt that M/s Sada Healthcare Products Pvt. Ltd. cleared the goods irregularly availing the benefit of exemption notification. The matter was investigated by the authorities and during investigation the Director of M/s Sada Healthcare Products Pvt. Ltd. informed the appellant that they were liable to pay duty on these products. Thereupon the appellant paid the full excise duty alongwith interest although they were not the manufacturers but the recipients of the manuf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hile the penalty was imposed by the lower authority under Rule 25. They were never given an opportunity to defend themselves against imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3b. The first appellate authority has wrongly not agreed with their arguments and held that indication of Rule 25 instead of Rule 26 in the Order-in-Original was only a typographic error and the intention was to impose penalty under Rule 26 only which the original authority has correctly done. 3c. Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules reads as follows. "26. Penalty for certain offences.- (1)Any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealthcare Products Pvt. Ltd. in his statement alleged that the appellant played mischief and made them to clear the goods without payment of duty by creating the impression that duty is not payable on these items. This uncorroborated statement of the Director of M/s Sada Healthcare Products Pvt. Ltd. is not sufficient to impose penalty on them under Rule 26. 5. The first appellate authority had wrongly held that the intention of the lower authority was to impose penalty under Rule 26 because the entire discussion as far as the penalty on the appellant in para 15 is only with reference to Rule 25 and not with reference to Rule 26. He relied on the case law of TATA Motors Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune [2015(328)ELT 321 (Tri.- Mum.)]. 6. Thus he argued....