M/S. Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. 04/Ldh/06 dated 22.2.2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana ]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran , Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier Pvt. Ltd. Appellants

DPGC Pvt. Ltd.

Karamjit Singh

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Ludhiana

Appearance:

Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri R K Grover, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing /decision: 09.09.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 52850-52852 /2015

Per Ashok Jindal :

Appellants are in appeals against the impugned order imposing penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

2. The facts of the case are that appellants herein are transporter of the goods and they issued GRs without transporting of the goods. Therefore, adjudicating authority imposed penalty on the appellants under Rule 26 ibid. Against the said order appellants are before us.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that during the impugned period Rule 26 reads as under:

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 rupees ten thousand, whichever is greater. 

4. She submits that as the appellants have not acquired possession of the goods, therefore, penalty on the appellants is not impossible. To support this contention, she relied on this Tribunal in the case of Steel India Company vs CCE, Pune III [2014 (310) ELT 184 (Tri-Mumbai)].

5. On the other hand, learned AR relied on the decision of CCE, Ludhiana vs. Deepak Roadways [2010 (254) ELT 26 (P&H)].

6. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

7. It is an admitted fact that appellants have issued GRs for transportation of the goods and actually goods have not been transported by the appellants. Therefore, as it was in the knowledge of the appellants that they are not transporting the goods, the goods are liable for confiscation. In that case, penalty is imposable on the appellants in the light of decision of Honble High Court decision in the case of Deepak Roadways wherein the Honble High Court has held that in a case of transport company, who has issued blank GRs to the dealer to raise fake/ bogus modvatable documents in contravention of the Rules, in such a case, penalty is imposable. Therefore, we hold that in this case, penalty is rightly been imposed on the appellants. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, same is upheld.

8. Appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed.

( operative part of the order pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

( B Ravichandran )

Member(Technical)

ss

3