Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 799 - CESTAT AHMEDABADPenalty on Director u/r 26 of CER, 2002 - Clandestine removal by the company - Penalty imposed on director on the ground that he was engaged in day to day affairs of the company SPMPL - case of appellant-director is that Sec. 11A(2) and the proviso thereto would apply and no penalty should be imposed on him - the said company discharged the entire Central Excise duty, interest thereof and also 25% of the penalty amount involved as per the provisions of Sec. 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - the assessee M/s SPMPL has settled Central Excise duty as per the provisions of Sec 11A(1A) of the CEA, 1944. The lower authorities seeks to apply the provisions of Sec 11A(2A) in order to penalize the appellant herein under Rule 26 CER, 2002, which in my view, is in not in consonance with law settled by the Hon’ble High Court Punjab and Haryana in the case of Vikas Garg [2011 (10) TMI 554 - Punjab and Haryana High Court], where it was held that Once the proceedings against the firm stand concluded, penalty proceedings against partners of the firm cannot continue as Rule 26 of the Rules is not an independent provision but has to be read with Section 11A of the Act. The firm has satisfied the due of the Revenue, therefore, the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Rules are not justified. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|