TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 924
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Tribunal upheld the adjudication order dated 31.03.2014, passed by Commissioner Of Central Excise And Service Tax, Jaipur-1 ("Adjudicating Authority"), levying excise duty coupled with the penalty upon the company which is in appeal as well as its Managing Director, Chief Manager and transporter under Rules 25 and 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 ("Rules of 2002"). 2. The prayer sought and the issues arising in the present bunch of appeals are substantially similar. They have therefore been heard together and are being decided by this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from D.B. Central Excise Appeal 28/2017, titled M/s Autolite India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jaipur. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s. Autolite (India) Limited, is engaged in the manufacture of Auto Headlamps and Halogen Bulbs, which are supplied to automobile manufacturers in the domestic and export markets as well as in the replacement market. The appellant has various manufacturing and trading units, including a manufacturing unit at Sitapura, Jaipur, a Trading Division at VKIA, Jaipur ("Trading Division"), and a man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansported under Central Excise invoices and Transit Declaration Forms issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The finding that the Transit Declaration Form was the appellants' own document is specifically assailed as contrary to the record. 4.1 Learned counsels further submit that the goods were temporarily parked in the appellant's factory premises only because the godown was closed and the goods continued to remain in the trucks. It is contended that, this could not constitute clandestine manufacture or removal so as to attract Rule 25 of the Rules of 2002. Learned counsels submit that the very foundation of the show cause notice, namely, that the Pant Nagar Unit was a dummy unit and that the goods were manufactured by the appellant, was set aside by the adjudicating authority, which accepted the Pant Nagar Unit to be an independent manufacturing unit and set aside the major part of the proposed demand. It is further submitted that Halogen Bulbs were not manufactured at the appellant's unit and, therefore, the confiscation thereof and the consequential penalty were also unsustainable. 5. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondent submit that the impugned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nufactured by the appellant at its Pant Nagar unit. Two trucks which were loaded with the impugned goods did not have any entry in the gate register of Jaipur factory showing that they entered the factory and the security guard of the factory clearly stated that no entry is made when empty trucks entered the factory. It shows that at the time of entry in the factory, these trucks were empty. The statements of the drivers of these two trucks clearly revealed that they did not have any evidence of having transported the goods in those trucks from Pant Nagar which is several hundred kilometres away inasmuch as they had no receipt of toll tax nor any evidence of fuelling the trucks on the way. It is important to keep in mind that the truck drivers have to give account of expenses enroute for reimbursements of the toll paid and diesel refilled on the way etc. and therefore non possession of toll receipts or the diesel purchase bills clearly shows that the trucks had not come from Pant Nagar. As a matter of fact, one of the drivers in his statement even claimed that he got the diesel filled at Dharuhera and Gurgaon but he did not possess the bills and that he did not possess the receipt ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at all the major raw materials for Pant Nagar were also arranged from the appellant's head office at Jaipur and that the purchase of packing materials was also made from local vendors. All this when viewed in the light of the statement of the factory's security guard that no entry of empty trucks entering in the factory is made leads to the inescapable conclusion that the drivers' claim that the two trucks came from Pant Nagar is nothing more than cock and bull story and the trucks entered in the factory empty. The transit declaration form etc. submitted by the appellant are its own documents and do not in any way dilute the foregoing analysis of available evidence. 6. It is thus clear that the appellant indulged in modus operandi of manufacturing goods at Jaipur and put labels to show their manufacture by Pant Nagar unit to evade payment of duty. Shri Mahipal Gupta, Managing Director and Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta,Chief Manager actively involved themselves in this modus operandi. The truck drivers also colluded with the appellant Inasmuch as they tried to weave a cock and bull story claiming to have brought the goods from Pant Nagar when they were fully aware tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....."? In DB Central Excise Appeal No. 30/2017:- "1. Whether CESTAT was right in law in imposing personal penalty upon the appellant who is only one of the Directors/employees and not any authorised person for Central Excise matters, against whom no positive evidence/motive highlighted to invoke the provisions of Rule 26. 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law rejecting ROM application summarily on the ground of becoming functus officio and overlooking the apparent on records stated in the application."? In DB Central Excise Appeal No. 32/2017:- "1. Whether the impugned order passed by CESTAT is right and law and correct in facts whereby it is held that 'transit declaration form' was a own document of the AIL, Jaipur rather then the document issued by Utter Pradesh Commercial Taxes Department which bears testimony to the effect that the goods were manufactured and supplied by Pant Nagar Unit and were not manufactured by AIL, Jaipur and hence penalty under Rule 26 and confiscation and seizure under Rule-24 and 25 is illegal and perverse. 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law rejecting ROM application summarily on the ground of becoming fun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterference in the impugned order. The writ petitions are dismissed." (xxxx....xxxx....xxxx) 11. The question No. 1, as framed in D.B. Central Excise Appeal No. 28/2017, is, thus, decided against the appellant. 12. As an upshot, the question No. 2, as framed therein, is also decided, as a natural corollary, against the appellant. 13. As regards, the question No.1, as framed in D.B. Central Excise Appeal Nos. 29/2017, 30/2017 & 32/2017, reference may be made to Rule 26 of the Rules of 2002, which, for ready reference, is reproduced herein below:- "RULE 26. Penalty for certain offences. - (1) 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 goods or two thousand rupees, whichever is greater. PROVIDED that where any proceedings for the person liable to pay duty have been concluded under clause (a) or clause (d) of subsection (1) of section ....