AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... K Agarwal, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appellant was imposed penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for an amount of Rs. 10 Lacs. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant firm M/s Swastik Polymers was shown as trading firm who involves in the trading of goods manufactured by M/s. Shubham Polymers. M/s. Shubham Polymers manufactures BOPP Bags, they....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... S. Chandrasekharan Vs. CCE - 2009 (247) ELT 405 (T) • AIA Engg. Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE - 2006 (195) ELT 154 (T) • CCE. Vs. Vijaya Steels Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (282) ELT 215 (Kar.) 2.1 He further submits that on the fact also the statements recorded of both Mr. Ashok Proprietor of M/s. Shubham Polymers and Mr. Bimal Kumar Dhareva, Proprietor of M/s. Swastik are exculpatory....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the main appellant M/s. Shubham Polymers has admitted the duty liability and got their case settled under SVLDRs. In the present appeal the appellant was a co- noticee and he has been penalized under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The contention of the learned counsel is that since the goods were not confiscated , the appellant cannot be imposed penalty under Rule 26. In this regard, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ured by the M/s. Shubham Polymers with intention to avail SSI exemption by M/s. Shubham Polymers. With this undisputed fact the good dealt with by the present appellant are indeed liable for confiscation. Therefore, the penalty under Rule 26 was rightly imposed. However, considering that the entire goods dealt with by appellant all goods are not manufactured exclusively by M/s. Shubham Polymers. O....