M/s. A One Nuts and Edibles Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur I
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 775 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 29-5-2018
Excise Appeal No. 51006 of 2018 SM – A/52113/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri H C Saini, AR for the Respondent
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of Processed Food (Amla Candy) falling under Chapter Heading No. 20 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was alleged that the appellant had cleared the finished goods in bulk quantity for storage and preservation to various cold storages and the same was not processed by the cold storages except storage and preservation for time being on rental basis without obtaining permission under Rule 4(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 resulting in clearance of good
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
y for storage and preservation to various cold storages and the same was not processed by the cold storages except storage and preservation for time being on rental basis without obtaining permission under Rule 4(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. I have seen the copies of declarations filed by the appellant on 12.03.2012 with the Jurisdictional Divisional Officer and I find that the appellant has declared that they have appointed the cold storage to undertake job work/ preservation/ processing of their inputs namely Amla candy falling under tariff heading No. 20060000 into intermediate product namely Amla candy falling under tariff heading No. 20060000. The appellant further given the undertaking that the intermediate product which will be manufactured by the job worker will be used for manufacture of final product in their factory and shall be removed on payment of duty. It is an admitted fact in this case that the goods in question were sent to the cold storages for keeping under
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e Act, 1944 or of the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. Hence, the charges of clandestine removal of goods are not sustainable. Thus, the provisions of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable in this case. Accordingly, penalty in this case is imposable under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In this regard, I place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Weldon Cello Plast Ltd. vs CCE Delhi-IV [2013(287)ELT0141] and Shivam Pressings vs CCE Pune-I [2015(326)ELT 351 (Tri. Mum.)] wherein it has been held that penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed without any mens rea or wilful intention.”
4. As is seen from the above, the appellate authority has arrived at a finding that there was no malafide on the part of the assessee in the entire procedure so adopted after intimating the Revenue.
5. In such a scenario, imposition of penalty on the sole ground of non-observing of procedur
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =