TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 921
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise Act, 1944 (CEA). Thereafter, value has to be determined in terms of Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 (CER). In other words, the assessable value declared by M/s Quad in terms of said agreement was not considered as true transaction value for the purpose of discharging Central Excise duty and the price at which the appellants were selling to their related customers was considered as value for the purpose of discharging Central Excise duty in terms of Rule 9 of CER read with section 4(3)(b)(iv) of CEA. On adjudication, after examining the submissions made by M/s Quad, appellants and one Mr. Raminder Singh Soin, Managing Director of M/s Quad, the adjudicating authority, inter alia, confirmed the demand against M/s Quad along with equal penalty. In addition, penalty was imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, against the appellant as also against Mr. Raminder Singh Soin. The impugned order passed is a common order in respect of 2 SCNs OR Nos.47/2012 & 130/2012. As against the said order, all the three aggrieved persons filed appeal before this Tribunal. M/s Quad filed Appeal No. E/26985/2013 and Mr. Ram....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the goods were liable to be confiscated. 6. Learned AR, on the other hand, apart from reiterating the findings, has submitted that the term 'person' used under Rule 26 includes juristic person also. In support thereof, he has relied on certain judgments, as under, including the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aggarwal Trading Corporation & others Vs Asst. Collector of Customs [1983 (13) ELT 1467 (SC)]. a) Homang India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, ST & C, Bangalore-II [2017 (357) ELT 1194 (Tri-Bang)] b) Apple Sponge & Power Ltd Vs CST, Audit-I [2018 (362) ELT 894 (Tri- Mum)] c) Krishna Metal Corporation Vs CCE, Ahmedabad [2010 (262) ELT 377 (Tri-Ahmd)] d) CC& CE, Nagpur Vs Ispat Industries Ltd [2015 (324) ELT 670 (SC)] e) Banwarilal Jaipuria Vs Sitaram Jaipuria [1971 (3) TMI 78 - High Court of Calcutta] f) CCE, Aurangabad Vs Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt Ltd [2015 (322) ELT 389 (SC)] 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. 8. Before we proceed to examine the submissions from both sides, we find that insofar as the appeals filed by M/s Quad and Mr. Raminder Singh Soin, they have already been disposed of by this Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 11AC of the Act in respect of duty, interest and penalty, all proceedings in respect of penalty against other persons, if any, in the said proceedings shall also be deemed to be concluded. (2) Any person, who issues - (i) an excise duty invoice without delivery of the goods specified therein or abets in making such invoice; or (ii) any other document or abets in making such document, on the basis of which the user of said invoice or document is likely to take or has taken any ineligible benefit under 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. 11. A plain reading of the above rule would indicate that any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Board of Directors. In the eyes of law, the corporate entity being a person would be held responsible for the act of the natural persons. But in order to punish the guilty individuals, the veil of corporate entity had to be lifted to understand the correct picture. Precisely for these reasons only the provisions of Rule 209A came in to statute, in order to punish the guilty acting behind the veil of corporation/company. If in a given situation a parcel booking clerk of the Indian Railways, in order to have some personal gain, colludes with others to book the goods without any duty paying documents (though he has knowledge that the goods have to be booked on the basis of duty paying documents) and the goods are seized by the authorities at the destination point, can the Indian Railways be penalized under the provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944? The resounding answer would be "NO" as Indian Railways is not having any knowledge that the goods so booked are liable for confiscation. The booking clerk is in knowledge and hence he is liable to be penalized under the said Rule 209A. Accordingly, we find that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in the case of India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unless it is proved by them that the contravention took place without their knowledge or they exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention." 13. We find that in various other judgments cited by learned Advocate in support that Rule 26 cannot be invoked against a body corporate, they have mostly relied on the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Steel Tubes of India Ltd Vs CCE (supra). It is also noted that though the judgment is in the context of Rule 209A of erstwhile CER, 1944, however, the provisions under Rule 26 and Rule 209A are pari materia, inasmuch as the same expression has been incorporated except for the extent of penalty and certain other additional conditions. For the sake of reference, Rule 209A is also cited below. "Any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of such goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater." 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial duty has been confirmed in respect of certain goods cleared by M/s Quad. We also find that this issue has been dealt with extensively by the adjudicating authority at Para 23.23 of the impugned order. He has also taken note of the fact that the appellants had adopted novel modus operandi to escape the duty liability. He has also noted that the appellants had entered into an agreement with M/s Quad, which, inter alia, stipulated that goods were to be supplied to place where the appellant directs. In fact, he has observed that not only M/s Quad, but even the appellant did not furnish required information for almost one year and had adopted delaying tactics, which can be evidenced from correspondences made with the Range Officer as detailed in Para 5 to 8 of the Notice. It was also pointed out that the appellants were fully aware that the assessable value adopted by M/s Quad was not inclusive of technical knowhow charges, which would lead to short payment of Central Excise duty on finished goods. 17. Therefore, we find that there is enough evidence to suggest that the appellants were aware that duty is being discharged at a value, which is not legally correct and they were also....