2003 (12) TMI 128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Challenged in Appeal No. Rs. 50 lakhs M/s. Kamdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Indore (Noticee No. 3) E/1997/2002 Rs. 25 lakhs Sh. Keshavan Nair Authorised Signatory of the above Company (Noticee No. 6) E/1998/2002 Rs. 50,000/- Sh Vishal Agarwal, Prop., Vishal Transport Service, Indore (Noticee No. 10) E/1999/2002 Rs. 50,000/- Vishal Transport Service, Indore (Noticee No. 9) E/2000/2002 Rs. 50 lakhs M/s. Yash Marketing Co., Indore (Noticee No. 4) E/2458/2002 Rs. 25 lakhs Sh. Paras Vora, Yash Marketing Co., Indore (Noticee No. 7) E/2459/2002 Rs. 50,000/- Sh. Ajit Singh Bhatia, Bhatia Agencies, Indore (Noticee No. 8) E/2186/2002 Rs. 50,000/- M/s. Bhatia Agencies Indore ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resenting the appellants in Appeal Nos. 2458 and 2459, argued that a penalty under Rule 209A could be validly imposed on any person only if it was found, on the basis of reliable evidence, that he had physically dealt with any excisable goods, knowing or believing that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Central Excise Act or Rules. In support, the learned Counsel cited the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (i)          S.R. Foils Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (138) E.L.T. 719 (Tri. - Del.)] (ii)         Godrej Boyce & Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. CCE [2002 (148) E.L.T. 161 (T) = 2002 (103) ECR 770 (Tri.)] (iii)       ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vocate Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, who appeared for the appellants in Appeal Nos. 1997-2000, adopted all the arguments of the Senior Advocate and further submitted that natural justice was denied to his clients by the adjudicating authority inasmuch as it passed the impugned order without giving them any opportunity of being personally heard. The SDR reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. 3.1 In Appeal Nos. 1997-2000, we note that there is a challenge to the Commissioner's order on the ground of violation of natural justice. It has been stated that, before the appellants could reply to the show cause notice, the Commissioner passed the order without giving them any hearing. The Commissioner noted in his order that the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isable goods with such knowledge or belief. Acquisition of possession of goods is, indisputably, a physical act, and so is each of the various ways of dealing with goods, specifically mentioned in the rule. The expression "any other manner" should be understood in accordance with the principle of ejusdem generis and would, then, mean "any other mode of physically dealing with the goods". This position has been recognized in Godrej Boyce & Mfg. Co. (supra) which has been followed in A.M. Kulkarni (supra). The decision in Ram Nath Singh (supra) is also to the same effect. Any person to be penalized under the above rule should also be shown to have been concerned in physically dealing with excisable goods with the knowledge or belief that the ....