TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ER (JUDICIAL) And HON'BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Arvind Baheti, Chartered Accountant,[in respect of Excise Appeal Nos. 75629 to 75631 of 2019] Shri Kartik Kurmy, Advocate,[In respect of Excise Appeal Nos. 75813 to 75814 of 2019] Shri Samrat Agarwal, Director,[In respect of Excise Appeal No. 75810 of 2019] Smt. Parul Damani, CMA,[In respect of Excise Appeal No. 75844 of 2019] For the Appellant Shri Debapriya Sue, Authorized Representative Shri S.K. Singh, Authorized Representative For the Respondent ORDER ORDER : [ PER SHRI ASHOK JINDAL ] In all these appeals, the issue is common and therefore, all are disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that proceedings were initiated against one M/s. Shree....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de the impugned order. 5. Aggrieved from the imposition of penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the appellants are before us. 6. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submit that penalties under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be imposed on impersonal bodies like companies and body corporates. In support of this contention, they rely on the decision of this Tribunal in the following cases: - (i) Woodmen Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna [2004 (164) E.L.T. 339 (Tri. - Kolkata)] which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. A307 (S.C.); (ii) Apple Sponge and Power Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax [2018 (362) E.L.T. 894 (T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder the Act or the rules made thereunder like claiming of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or refund, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater." 9.2. As per the said Rule, any person who issues excise duty invoices without delivery of the goods can be penalized under the said provision. Therefore, from the said provisions, any person who is involved in the activity of issuing cenvatable invoices to the buyer enabling him to take CENVAT Credit without delivery of the goods is liable to be penalized under Rule 26(2) of the said Rules. 10. In these circumstances, it is to be seen as to whether the appellants before us, being Limited Companies / Pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orated or not. Reliance was also placed on the definition of the word person in Section 3(42) of The General Clauses Act, 1897, for this proposition. Undoubtedly the expression "Any person" would include a natural and unnatural person i.e. it would include in its ambit any company or corporation or body of individual/s. The moot question is that whether such unnatural body corporate has its own mind, to have knowledge that the goods are liable for confiscation. It is common knowledge that a corporation/company is run by a Board of Directors, who are individuals. They are the trustees of the shareholders of the corporation/company. The decisions taken by the Board of Directors would be for the company but it will not be a decision of the cor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal in the case of Indian Roadways Corporation Ltd. (supra) is also correct and does not require any reconsideration." 10.3. We further take note of the fact that the issue has also been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Apple Sponge and Power Ltd. (supra) wherein, again, this Tribunal observed as under: - "4. .... ...I also find that penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed only on the natural individual person and not on the artificial person or company because the goods is handled by natural living person and not by an artificial entity. Therefore, on both the counts, penalty under Rule 26 is not imposable." 11. Admittedly, the appellants before us, namely, M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited, M/s. Rashmi Cement Limited, M/s.....