2021 (8) TMI 1194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.K. Hatangadi a/w Shri Shanjay Hasija, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 2002 is the subject matter of present dispute. The appellants in these appeals have contended that the provisions of Rule 26 shall have the application only in the case of natural individual ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../0265/2017, 2017 (357) E.L.T. 1194 (Tri.-Bang.) 3. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and also relied upon the following judgments to state and submit that since, the appellants had contravened the statutory provisions, Rule 26 ibid has been correctly invoked by the authorities below in support of imposition of penalty. (i) A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or [two thousand rupees], whichever is greater." 6. On perusal of above statutory provision, it transpires that the penal provisions contained therein are applicable only in case of natural person and not for the artificial person namely the incorporated company or a partnership firm. Admittedly, in this case the appellants are the partnership fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal vide Order dated 20.04.2018 (Appeal No. E/86386/2017) has held that penalty under Rule 26 ibid can be imposed only on the individual person and not on the artificial person or company inasmuch as the goods are handled by a natural person and not by an artificial entity. I also find that similar views have also been expressed by this Tribunal in the orders relied upon by the learned Advoca....