TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods. Similarly, Shri V.K. Vora, President (Material) of M/s. Motorol Speciality Oil Limited was also giving direction for removal of inputs to job workers for which no entries were made in the Central Excise records. He was also instrumental in directing the employees of M/s. Motorol Speciality Oil Limited for appropriating the job work challans showing a huge quantity returned as residue - thus, they were directly involved in the entire activities of evasion - however, quantum of penalty is reduced. Penalties have also been imposed on M/s. M/s. Motorol Speciality Oil Limited, Halol and M/s. Motorol Lubricants Pvt. Limited, Vadodara under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- The quantum of penalty is reduced. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/1397,1425-1428/2009-DB - A/11735-11739/2018 - Dated:- 8-2-2018 - Mr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Amal Paresh Dave, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.N. Gohil, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Raju These five appeals have been filed by co-noticees booked against M/s. Motorol Technology Limited against the imposition of penalties. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shri Chakra Tyres 1999 (32) RLT 1(CEGAT) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited 2005 (179) ELT A102 (SC). For the said purpose, we remand the matter to Commissioner. The applicants are at liberty to show to the Commissioner any duplication of demand, either in respect of the clandestine clearances or in respect of the clearances made from the receipts of M/s. Motorol Speciality Oils Limited. 13. Inasmuch as the appeal for re-quantification of duty demand is being remanded, the Commissioner would also adjudge the penal liabilities of every appellant afresh depending upon the outcome of the re-quantification of the duty against M/s. Motorol Technologies Limited. He will also take into consideration the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Dharmendra Textiles 2008 (89) RLT 103 (SC-LB). He would also consider the pleas of the other appellants, as regards imposition of penalties upon them. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the issue of the appellants i.e. Shri R.S. Gandhi, Shri H.S. Nagraj and Shri V.K. Vora s liability to the penal action. The matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed as the said Rule require physical dealing with the goods as a pre-condition. 4. The appeals of Shri Rinki S. Gandhi, M/s. Motorol Lubricants Pvt. Limited and M/s. Motorol Speciality Oils Limited solely relied upon the grounds of appeal in the case of M/s. Motorol Technologies Limited. In the said case, it has been argued that only if the appellant has dealt with goods physically by possession of goods or transport, can the penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Tubes of India Limited Ors. Vs. CCE, Indore 2007 (217) ELT 506 (Tri. LB). 5. Ld. AR relied upon the impugned order. 6. We have carefully gone through the rival submissions. We find that the ground of defense of Shri Rinki S. Gandhi is that he has not physically dealt with the goods being Managing Director of the Company and therefore, penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed. It has been argued that personal penalty under Rule 26 can only be imposed when the goods are confiscated. In the instant case, the goods involving duty of only worth ₹ 83,770/- have been seized and therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However, keeping in view the fact that both are employees and taking a lenient view, penalties of Shri V.K. Vora is reduced from ₹ 5,00,000/- to ₹ 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) and penalty on Shri H.S. Nagraj is reduced from ₹ 50,000/- to ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). Penalties have also been imposed on M/s. M/s. Motorol Speciality Oil Limited, Halol and M/s. Motorol Lubricants Pvt. Limited, Vadodara under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Ld. Counsel has relied on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Tubes of India Limited (supra) wherein the following has been held :- 9. As regards the second issue in reference it can be noticed that the Rule 209A pre-supposes a knowledge as to the liability of the confiscation of the goods which being transported etc. It was argued extensively by the authorized representative for the department that the expression Any person would include any company or association or body of individual, whether incorporated or not. Reliance was also placed on the definition of the word person in Section 3(42) of The General Clauses Act, 1897, for this proposition. Undou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
