Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1045 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine clearance - Clearance of sugar in excess to the quota allowed to them and on this excess clearances, parallel invoices were issued whereas no duty was paid on the parallel invoices - levy of penalty under Rule 26 for the charge of abatement in evasion of duty by the company - HELD THAT:- The fact of clandestine removal done by the company M/s Shree Sardar Co-operative Sugar Industries Limited is not under dispute as the company has issued parallel invoices on which no duty was paid. The transaction were also not booked properly in the books of accounts. Against the said parallel invoices, the company also received the payment which intentionally not shown in the sales account but shown as deposit against the respective customers, therefore, it clearly transpires that the company and its board under systematic modus operandi, carried out the clandestine removal of the excisable goods - As per the facts of this case, the entire modus operandi can only be done by the board of the company which includes all the directors, it is beyond imagination that such a systematic act of clandestine removal and in proper accounting of the payment in the books as deposit can be done without the knowledge of the Directors of the company. Such type of act cannot be accepted from the employee of the company - Such type of act cannot be accepted from the employee of the company. It is also observed that the employee in their statement clearly stated that for the entire act, information is available with Shri Narendra C Solanki. Penalty under Rule 26 is decided on the basis of the fact of each case depending on the role of the person which varies from case to case. Therefore, considering the fact of the present case, the judgments are not applicable. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order imposing penalty on the present appellants. Appeal dismissed.
|