IMPORTANT POINT
Voluntary admissions and corroborative evidence are sufficient for imposing penalties under Central Excise Rules, even in the absence of retraction.

JUDGMENT :

T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.

1. This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) is directed against the final order dated 4th May, 2023 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kolkata. The appellant assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

(A) Whether penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable without holding any exercisable goods as confiscable under the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Rules made thereunder?

(B) Whether penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable upon any person without arriving at specific finding about the prior knowledge and/or reasons to believe about confiscable nature of any exercisable goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and/or Rules made thereunder?

(F) Whether the Ld. Tribunal below has miserably failed to follow their own Final Order No. 75583-75585/2020 dated 12.11.2020 passed in Excise Appeal No. 76211 of 2018 [M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Limited (Unit-III) v. Commissioner of CGST and CX, Bolpur Commissionerate], amongst others, whereat the Ld. Tribunal has held that the recoveries from the premises of M/s. Shree Parasnath Re-Rolling Mills Limited on 27.12.2012 cannot be relied upon to arrive at any adverse conclusion?

(G) Whether the rule of judicial discipline demands the Ld. Tribunal to follow their earlier order with respect to the similarly situated appellants more particularly when the earlier Final Order No. 75583-75585/2020 dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Ld. Tribunal in Excise Appeal No. 76211 of 2018 [M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Limited (Unit-III) v. Commissioner of CGST and CX, Bolpur Commissionerate], amongst others, has not been appealed against any of the parties in the said proceeding?

2. We have heard Mr. Arijit Chakraborty, learned Advocate assisted by Mr. Akash Dutta, Mr. Aditya Dutta and Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned Advocates for the appellant and Mr. K.K. Maiti and Mr. Tapan Bhanja, learned Advocates for the respondent.

3. On 19th April, 2024 when this appeal was heard, it was represented by Mr. Arijit Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Limited (Unit-III) Versus Commissioner of CGST and CX, Bolpur Commissionerate in Excise Appeal No. 76211 of 2018 etc. is identical on facts to the assessee’s case as in the said case also the assessee was a purchaser from Shree Parasnath Re-Rolling Mill Limited and the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeals and such orders have become final, however the learned Tribunal did not do so in the assessee's case and therefore, the assessee is on appeal and prayed for similar benefit be extended to the appellant as well. Subsequently, the matter was listed and heard and the case was reserved for judgment.

4. Search was conducted by the officers of the intelligence wing of the Central Excise Department on Shree Parashnath Re-Rolling Mills Limited hereinafter referred to as SPRML, on the specific intelligence that they were evading Central Excise Duty by clandestinely procuring raw material namely M.S. billets, M.S. ingots, sponge iron and M.S. scrap, suppressing production and clandestinely procuring the finished goods i.e. M.S. structural items, M.S. wire rods of various sizes. This search led to issuance of a show-cause notice on the appellant dated 16.03.2017 containing various allegations and the appellant assessee was called upon to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 26 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (the Rules).

5. The sum and substance of the allegations is that the appellant assessee was involved in clandestine removal of several metric tons of wire rods manufactured by SPRML during the period from 01.02.2012 to 25.12.2012 without cover of Central Excise invoices and the appellant assessee appears to have knowingly concerned themselves in trans