Shri Kapil Agarwal, Director vs Cce, Delhi-I

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.12-13/CE/DLH/2013 dt.31.1.13 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Delhi-I)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 04.03.2015

For Approval &signature:

Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Shri Kapil Agarwal, Director Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Delhi-I Respondent

Appearance

Shri V.R.Sethi, Advocate for the appellant

Shri G.R.Singh, AR for the respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

FINAL ORDER NO.50806/2015

Per Ashok Jindal :

Short issue involved in this case is whether penalty can be imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 when the main noticee to the show cause notice has paid the entire amount of duty, interest and 25% duty as penalty within the period of 30 days of issue of show cause notice as per section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 or not.

3. The issue has come up before Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Vikas Garg-2014 (306) ELT 94 (P&H) wherein Honble High Court has held that once proceeding against the firm has been concluded, penalty proceeding against the partner of the firm cannot confirmed as Rule 26 is not independent provision, but has to be read with section 11A of the Act. Therefore, the penalty is not imposable on the partner.

4. Following Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Vikas Garg (Supra), penalty under Rule 26 is not imposable on the appellant. Consequently, the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

(pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal)

Member (Judicial)

mk

1