Gulab Chand Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/23323
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided OnMay-25-2001
AppellantGulab Chand Sharma
RespondentCommissioner of Central Excise,
Excerpt:
1. the applicant filed this application for waiver of penalty of rs. 1,000/- imposed under rule 209a of the central excise rules.2. the brief facts of the case are that some goods were found in the tempo owned by the application the goods were not covered under any valid duty paying documents as per the revenue. the contention of the applicant is that he is the owner of the tempo and he is not concerned with any way in evasion of central excise duty. his tempo was only carrying the goods of some manufacturer and duty paying documents were also issued by the manufacturer. whereas, on verification, it was found that only one of the invoice was not a valid invoice. therefore, his contention is that he is not liable for any penal action.4. taking into facts and circumstances of the case as the applicant is the owner of the tempo, he is not concerned with the goods in question, therefore, prima facie, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant. hence the predeposit of whole of the penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal.
Judgment:
1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of penalty of Rs. 1,000/- imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.

2. The brief facts of the case are that some goods were found in the Tempo owned by the application the goods were not covered under any valid duty paying documents as per the Revenue. The Contention of the Applicant is that he is the owner of the Tempo and he is not concerned with any way in evasion of Central Excise duty. His tempo was only carrying the goods of some manufacturer and duty paying documents were also issued by the manufacturer. Whereas, on verification, it was found that only one of the invoice was not a valid invoice. Therefore, his contention is that he is not liable for any penal action.

4. Taking into facts and circumstances of the case as the applicant is the owner of the tempo, he is not concerned with the goods in question, therefore, prima facie, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant. Hence the predeposit of whole of the penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal.