RAM NATH SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the grievance of the appellant is that a penalty of Rs. 20,000/ - has been imposed on him by the lower authorities under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 illegally.

(2.) Examined the records and heard both sides.

(3.) Ld. Counsel for the appellant refers to the allegation as contained in the show -cause notice as also to the finding records by the original in its order, and submits that there was neither any allegation nor any finding by the original authority that the appellant had dealt with any excisable goods in any such manner as specified under Rule 209A. Counsel submits that, in such circumstances, a penalty under Rule 209A was not warranted. It is his further submission that the lower Appellate authority has not recorded any independent finding on the question whether the appellant was liable to be penalised under any of the rules mentioned in the show cause notice. He prays for vacating the penalty. Ld. JDR, on the other hand, submits that there is conclusive evidence on record to show that the appellant had dealt with gate passes relating to excisable goods by passing on those documents from one party to another, the latter using those documents for availment of Modvat credit. Ld. DR submits that the appellant was abettor of illegal availment of Modvat credit and hence called for penal action under Rule 209A.