|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1051 Records
-
2015 (10) TMI 2205 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Manufacture and captive consumption of HR Strips - demand of duty denying the exemption under notification 67/95 dated 16.03.1995 - Imposition of penalty and interest - Held that:- Where duty is demanded the appellant were required to pay a sum of ₹ 6,67,400/- whereas they are entitled for deemed credit during the period is ₹ 7,09,817/-. Therefore, the appellant have entitled more credit than the payment of duty. Moreover, appellant has paid excess duty of ₹ 17,640/- during the impugned period as per the calculations. In these circumstances, we hold that interest is not payable by the appellant. Further, in the absence of any mensrea on the part of the appellant penalty is not imposable which is evident that after allowing deemed credit to the appellants, appellant has paid duty in excess. Therefore, malafides were not proved against the appellant. In these circumstances, penalty is also not imposable - Demand of interest and penalty are not sustainable on the appellant - Decided in favour of favour of assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2204 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Clandestine removal of sponge iron manufactured and cleared without payment of duty - Held that:- It is the grievance of the appellant they had requested for cross examination of certain witnesses during the course of adjudication proceeding, but the same has been denied by the adjudicating without any valid reason. We find from the records that the cross-examination request of witnesses though had been advanced by the appellant before the adjudicating authority, but they have not substantiated the need for the cross examination of the respective witnesses whose examination would be necessary for the purpose of their defense. In any case, it cannot be denied that in the event the appellant could make out a case for cross examination , such an opportunity cannot be denied to them as it would amount to violation of principle of natural justice - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2203 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay - Power of commissioner to condone delay - inordinate delay of 15 months - Held that:- High Court has directed learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the application for Condonation of delay on merits.The provisions of section 35(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 restrict the time limit for learned Commissioner (Appeals) to entertain the appeal within two months and which can extend to period of 30 days which is sufficient time as shown to make appeal before him causing delay as per the statute before the Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) is restricted not to entertain any appeal filed beyond three months and said fact has been affirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). - Same view has been taken by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Doaba Rollling Mills (P) Ltd. (2004 (2) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD) and Modi Distillery (2007 (5) TMI 252 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD). Therefore, learned Commissioner (Appeals) have no power to entertain any appeal which is filed beyond the period prescribed under section 35(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2202 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Determination of assessable value - Trade discount - Held that:- Service charges do not appear to be a trade discount for the simple reason that in the same invoice there is a discount with the name trade discount. The learned counsel for the appellant, in spite of 2-3 adjournments, has not been able to bring out any evidence whatsoever to support his contention that deduction due to service charges are nothing but trade discount. In the absence of any documentary evidence, we are unable to accede to the contention. - department raised this objection that the appellants changed the nomenclature to additional trade discount. To our mind, by changing the nomenclature, they are only trying to mislead the department and by change of the nomenclature, service charges cannot become additional trade discount. In view of this position, in our view, even after 1.9.1999, the said deduction has to be considered as deduction towards service charges. - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2201 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Admissibility of cenvat credit - Rejected and returned goods - Held that:- On the basis of audit it was observed that appellant has not followed the procedure and conditions laid down in Rule 16(2) and 16(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It was also mentioned in the show cause notice that appellant did not maintain any records/ registers for rejected and returned goods as provided under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, it is observed from RG 23A Pt.I maintained by the appellant that entries have been made in this register regarding receipt of rejected goods in spite of the fact that no record has been specified under Rule 16 to be maintained by an assessee. The documents on the basis of which CENVAT credit is taken is also available with the appellant. The records maintained by the appellant is showing the issue slips for remanufacture of the goods and end products are duly entered in the stock registered and cleared on payment of duty - There is no evidence on record that no process was carried out on the rejected goods received by the appellant whereas, the appellant has produced documentary evidence to show that certain process were done which amounts to manufacture and cleared on payment of duty. - CENVAT credit on rejected and returned goods was correctly availed by the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2200 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Denial of CENVAT Credit - whether CENVAT credit of services of Para medical staff availed by the appellant for providing medical facilities to its employees in the factory is admissible or not, when such services are required to be provided statutorily under the Factories Act, 1948 - Held that:- The ratio laid down by the relied upon case laws [2015 (10) TMI 1693 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and [2011 (4) TMI 1122 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] support the view that Cenvat Credit with respect to medical facilities provided statutorily under the Factories Act 1948 will be admissible - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2199 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Bogus invoices - Non existence of supplier of goods - Held that:- Goods were supplied by various merchant manufacturers for processing, on job charge basis and the goods were supplied to them accompanied with Central Excise invoice. They processed the goods and which were taken by the merchant manufacturers. He also stated that they received job charges for the processing of the grey fabrics. It is categorically stated that they received job charges by cheque from the various merchant manufacturers. It is seen that in 2005, the Central Excise Officers found that the suppliers of the Grey fabrics were not in existence. We find that the Dy Commissioner, C&CE Div IV, Surat by his letter dtd 4.12.2008 in response to query under RTI application had forwarded to copy of the CE Registration Certificate of the suppliers. Thus, it is clearly evident that the suppliers were in existence during the material period. - Decision in the case of M/s Prayagraj Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt Ltd (2013 (5) TMI 705 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) followed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2198 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Denial of CENVAT Credit - input services availed prior to commencement of manufacturing activity - cargo handling service - distribution of credit - Penalty u/s 11AC - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 deals with the manner of distribution of cenvat credit by ISD - there are two restrictions under the said Rule that the cenvat credit cannot be distributed more than the service tax paid and credit should be used by a manufacturing unit of excisable goods. Further, Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules provides that manufacturer of the final products shall be allowed to take Cenvat Credit. Sub rule 4 of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, also state that cenvat credit can be utilized for payment of excise duty on final product. - A plain reading of both the Rules clarifies that there is no restriction to the effect that if any assessee avail cenvat credit on procurement of inputs (prior to start of manufacture), is not entitled to take cenvat credit. Infact, without procuring inputs, or some inputs service, assessee cannot start manufacturing activity. Therefore, it cannot be said that an assessee who is a manufacturer of excisable goods is to be denied the cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs or input service availed prior to start of manufacturing activity.
When the adjudicating authority held that it is an issue of interpretation of Rule, therefore it cannot be alleged that appellant has taken cenvat credit by way of fraud, collusion, willful mis statement, suppression of fact or contravened the provisions of Act/ Rule with an intent to evade payment of duty. Further, in the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has himself has recorded that the appellant has stated that show cause notice is barred by limitation because there was no suppression on their part - It is correct that assessee should have known all the Rules / provisions of Rules, Act but there are omission on the part of the appellant for invoking extended period of limitation which is absent in this case. Therefore, extended period of limitation, is also not invokable in the facts of this case. In these circumstances, I hold that the appellant is having the case on merits as well as on limitation. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2197 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Denial of Cenvat Credit - Duty paid through PLA - Rule 8(3A) - Held that:- As Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 has been declared unconstitutional, consequently proceedings against the appellant are not sustainable. Further I find that appellant has contravened the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002, therefore, general penalty under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable. Therefore, I impose penalty under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the main appellant i.e. M/s. Space Telelink Ltd. of ₹ 5,000. Further, I hold that the Managing Director has not contravened, penalty on Managing Director are set aside. - Relying on Decision of Indsur Global Ltd. [2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2196 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Clandestine removal of inputs and finished goods - Shortage of goods founds - Held that:- Shortage of MS scrap is correct as they have been sold by the appellant the scrap in the local market to various individual traders without preparing any bills. With respect to shortage of SS Slabs, it was stated by Shri Mohammed Kaizer, Director, that they have cleared the goods without preparing any bills. On a specific question asked by the investigating officer as to whom the scrap and finished goods were sold, the appellant was not able to give the records for such sale. In the absence of addresses of the persons to whom the scrap and the finished goods were sold, investigating authorities cannot be faulted to carry out further investigation of the buyers. Shortage of raw materials, admitted by the appellant in spite of the fact that certain MS Scrap was under process on the day of visit of the Central Excise officers indicates that the main appellant was in the practice of receiving raw materials unscrupulously and using the same in the manufacture of finished goods removed of clandestinely. Inspite of some MS Scrap in process and lying near the furnace, in his statement the Director of the main appellant did not claim that raw materials in stock was incorrectly taken by the Dept. Officers. The statements taken by the investigators are not retracted. Therefore, taking a stand during appeal proceeding that stock taking of the raw-materials was done incorrectly is not sustainable.
So far as duty liability on the clandestinely removed SS Flats is concerned Adjudicating Authority should rework out the duty liability after allowing the benefit of cum-duty benefit and intimate the same to the appellant. After reworking of duty liability with respect to finished SS Plates, main appellant will be eligible to exercise 25% option of reduced penalty, if the duty is paid along with interest and penalty within one month from the receipt of such communication from the Adjudicating Authority. So far as imposition of penalties upon the other appellants is concerned, it is observed that they were involved in the clandestine removal of raw-materials and the finished goods. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority upon the appellants is justified and has been correctly upheld by the first Appellate Authority - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2195 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Evasion of duty - Clandestine removal of goods - Whether the case of clandestine removal can be held to be established on the basis of statement dated 12.09.2006 of Shri Rajesh R. Patel, Excise Executive and Authorised Signatory of the appellant - Held that:- There is no other corroborative evidence or statement given by any other person to substantiate that there was any clandestine removal on the part of the appellant. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned advocated appearing on behalf of the appellant that this statement only talks about payment of an amount voluntarily made in good faith with a scope to explain the shortages. By a letter dated 16.09.2006 appellant, within a week s time of Panchnama, explained the department that there was no shortages as several materials are lying spread over everywhere in the factory premises, which are rejected as well as returned goods. No verification was made during investigation with respect to the claim made by the appellant. During subsequent investigation conducted, by recording statement dated 11.08.2009 of Shri S.R.B. Nair, Chief Operating Officer and Director of the appellant, also explains the case of the appellant that there was no shortage of finished goods. - there is even no confessional statement of the appellant, because the very first statement at 12.09.2006 convey that duty was paid voluntary in good faith with a scope to explain shortages later. Rather the shortages detected during the visit of the officers of Central Excise were intimated as non-existing by a letter within a week from the date of visit. To reject the appellant's claim of no shortage of finished goods, a verification ought to have been done immediately.
Shortages were alleged to be that of chemicals when the shortage where it was not found admitted but a statement was given that the shortage will be explained later and the same was explained by the appellant during subsequent investigations. In the absence of any other independent corroborative evidence and after perusal of the case records it is to be held that shortages and clandestine removal of the finished goods are not established and are solely based on presumptions and assumptions. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2194 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Denial of CENVAT credit - Bogus invoices - Issue of invoices without actual supply of goods - Held that:- The main party M/s Deepak Processors has not filed any appeal against the said OIO. It is observed that M/s. Deepak Proceessors availed CENVAT credit without receipt of goods. Subsequently, rebate claims of ₹ 24,21,201/- filed by M/s Deepak Processors were also rejected by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is also not correct that penalty against the appellant is solely based upon his statement because Shri Awadh Narayan Singh proprietor of M/s Deepak Processors in his statement Dated 29.04.2008 has also admitted that CENVAT credit was availed on fraudulent documents without receipt of goods. Adjudicating Authority after going through all the relying upon documents and statements have come to the conclusion that M/s Sai Textiles, Surat has issued invoices without physically transacting in goods and passed on only CENVAT credit to M/s Deepak Processors. - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2189 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT Credit - capital goods - later on re-exported the said capital goods and got their EPCG licence cancelled - Held that:- appellant is not required to reverse CENVAT Credit taken on the capital goods, which was procured and subsequently re-exported - In view of the consistent stand of Tribunal [2014 (9) TMI 864 - CESTAT MUMBAI], which is also in accordance with the Board Circular dated 29.08.2000 - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2150 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation of goods - Related person and favoured buyer - mutuality of interest - Determination of transactional value - As far as M/s. Haldyn is concerned, it is owned by the Shetty group and the Mehta group who subscribe 52 per cent and 48 per cent shares respectively in the said company. On the other hand, M/s. Travin, one of the purchasers, is wholly owned by the Shetty group and other three firms are wholly owned by Mehta group. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is argued by Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, that since M/s. Haldyn on the one hand and the four purchasers on the other hand belong to same group(s), the mutuality test automatically stands satisfied. - where the two companies/firms etc., belong to the same group then the test of mutuality is established and satisfied. In a sense, the Court has torn the corporate veil thereby pointing out that such family concerns would be beneficiaries in the affairs of each other.
Held that:- CESTAT was not right in holding that there was no mutuality of interest and, therefore, supplier on the one hand and the purchaser on the other hand were not related persons. Insofar as the price manipulation is concerned, i.e., sale of the goods by M/s. Haldyn to the aforesaid purchasers at a depressed price, the same has been established on record on the basis of plethora of evidence tendered by the Revenue which has been discussed in detail in the order of the Commissioner - Impugned order is set aside - Decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. ITEC (P)Ltd., Bombay [2002 (9) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2149 - SUPREME COURT
Benefit of SSI Exemption - Use of Brand name of others - Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.02.1993 - Held that:- Respondent is using brand name 'BILZ' of a foreign company which makes the respondent ineligible to seek exemption under the aforesaid Notification. However, it has come on record that the foreign company, viz., M/s. Otto Bilz Wekzugfabrik GMPH & Co., a German company, has assigned the trade mark 'BILZ' in favour of the assessee under Agreement dated 18.06.1996 with right to use the said trade mark in India exclusively. Because of the aforesaid assignment, the assessee is using the trade mark 'BILZ' in its own right as its own trade mark and therefore, it cannot be said that it is using the trade mark of 'another person'. We, thus, are in agreement with the view taken by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal that the assessee would be entitled to the aforesaid Exemption Notification. - show cause notice dated 31.03.1999 which pertained to the period July, 1997, to March, 1998, is held to be time barred by CESTAT and further holding that the Revenue could not avail the benefit of proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Finding of the CESTAT on this issue is also without any blemish. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2147 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Denial of rebate claim - Suppression of production by the processor of textiles - Violation of principle of natural justice - Notification No.31/98, dated 16.2.1999 - Held that:- Appellate authority has nothing but dissected from its own earlier order, dated 01.8.2006 wherein, as already stated, having discussed the issue in detail by following the rulings of the Apex Court in the matter of audi alteram partem, directed the lower authority to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to peruse the relied upon documents/personal hearing. It shows that the authorities were fully satisfied than the aggrieved party. It is pertinent to note that there was no change in the circumstances between the first round of orders of the authorities and the present impugned orders and it appears that what are all left to be considered, were considered and passed the present orders when the petitioner approached on second time. Therefore, it is not fair and appropriate for the appellate authority to dissect from its own earlier order and come to contrary conclusion, that too at first stage, giving relief to the aggrieved party and at later stage, taking away such relief and if it is allowed, in my opinion it would certainly lead to travesty of justice as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2145 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Failure of the DGFT to pass the orders as per the directions of the Apex Court - No endeavour has been made to seek an extension and for passing an order or taking a decision in terms of the order of this Court referred above. - Held that:- Court do not countenance such state of affairs and particularly from the Directorate of Foreign Trade, the Director General of Foreign Trade or the Joint Director of Foreign Trade having his office at Mumbai. In the circumstances, we grant the time prayed but on the condition that the respondents shall pay costs, quantified at ₹ 1 lakh within four weeks from today to the petitioner. We refrain from imposing personal costs. The respondent No.1 – Union of India / Central Government is free to recover the costs from either the then Director General of Foreign Trade or the Joint Director then functioning for the lapses on their part in complying with the orders and directions of this Court and thereafter creating difficulties for the Union of India/ Central Government. - Petition disposed of.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2144 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Denial of benefit of Notification - wrong mention of notification no. in the declaration - conditional exemption under notification No. 49/2003, dated 10th June, 2003 - Held that:- Before first clearance, the respondent industry submitted a declaration with the appellant holding out that it is seeking to take advantage of the said Notification, but did not mention the number and date of the said Notification. Excise Department, on receipt of the said declaration, duly understood the purport thereof and proceeded on the basis that the said declaration has been submitted under the said Notification and before first clearance. In the declaration, the number of the said Notification and the date thereof was not mentioned, instead the number of some other Notification and date thereof crept in. - The fact remains that there is no dispute that the declaration was submitted before the first clearance. There is also no dispute that the purport of the declaration was to take benefit of the said Notification. The fact remains that even after receipt of the said declaration, Excise Department proceeded on the basis that the purport and intent of the said declaration was to take advantage of the said Notification. That being the situation, merely because the number of the Notification mentioned in the declaration was other than the number of the Notification mentioned above, respondent could not be denied the benefit of the said Notification. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2143 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Clandestine removal of goods - Penalty for abetment - Penalty under Rule 26 - Held that:- imposition of penalty under Rule 26 has been decided based upon the evidences available and the sufficiency of such evidences for imposition of penalty under Rule 26. - Penalty Imposed on 31 applicants is decided on the basis of evidences. - Appeal disposed of.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2142 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Denial of SSI Exemption - manufacture of welding electrodes - Clandestine removal of goods - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that all the 12 companies had bank accounts and transactions were made through cheques/DDs. It is not coming out from the show cause notice or the impugned order whether any effort was made through the banks to find out the precise address and the persons behind them who has withdrawn the money given to these 12 companies/firms. We also note that all these firms were registered with the Sales Tax department and also had filed the sales tax return. It is stated in the show cause notice that these firms were mainly engaged in the trading of coal. In our view, if the department had been able to find out that these 12 companies were involved in the trading of coal, it should have been possible for the department to locate the companies and record the statements of the proprietors to find out from whom the said supplier companies have purchased the welding electrodes. Results of such investigation could have helped in arriving the correct and true factual position.
No enquiries have been made with the buyers of welding electrodes of the three marketing companies. If enquiries were made at least with some buyers and it was found that the buyers have received the goods carrying the brand name of appellant No.1 alone, perhaps the case of the Revenue would have been on much stronger footing. - In the absence of these details, it cannot be concluded with certainty that all the goods that have been sold by the marketing companies were manufactured by appellant No.1 and appellant No.1 alone and were representing their unaccounted production.
In the absence of details of procurement of these two critical inputs (wire rods and rutile) and input-output correlation as also the factors mentioned earlier, we are of the view that the Revenue has not discharged burden of proving the quantum of clandestine production and clearance of the final product. We may hasten to say here though we are of the view that there are pointers to indicate that the appellants have indeed indulged in the clandestine clearance of the goods without payment of duty, however, it is equally important to have a reasonable if not correct quantity and value of the goods clandestinely cleared. Sometimes it may be difficult to have the correct figures but in such cases the estimation has to be based upon a very very reasonable basis. In view of the above analysis, we are of the view that the demand raised in annexure-I of the demand notice does not survive and we accordingly set aside.
In the absence of any proof of transportation or even admission in their statements, in our view, it will not be appropriate to assume that rutile/illmenite covered by the cases listed in the show cause notice had come to the factory of appellant No.1 and thereafter used in the production of welding electrodes which were cleared clandestinely. There are number of other raw materials and there are few evidences which indicate that some other raw materials had come to appellant No.1. However, these are few stray cases and do not account in substantial way to the clandestine clearance of quantity alleged in the show cause notice. These observations are applicable for demands covered by annexure-I as also annexure-V - welding electrodes manufactured by appellant No.1 were manufactured under the cover of documents of Vidarbha Enterprises and the said sale is not accounted for in the statutory records of appellant No.1. It was also observed that the documents of Vidarbha Enterprises were also having the same serial number and the said documents are also not recorded in the books of account of either Vidarbha Enterprises or appellant No.1. We also note that in the statements, the Directors have admitted that they had clandestinely cleared the goods in the name of marketing agency and as noted earlier, there are indications that the appellants had received the unaccounted raw material and manufactured and cleared the goods unaccounted. We are, therefore, of the view that the demand made in this annexure is required to be upheld.
Revenue has gone by the statement of Shri T.K. Rajgopal who has stated that he has sold about 400 MT of rutile to appellant No.1. We find that the Revenue has not found the details from the bank account of Rhodonite that in how many cases the drafts were made by depositing the cash amount by Shri Sanjay Malu. Further, on number of occasions drafts have been made from the account of Orange City Traders for which the goods were supplied by Indian Rare Earths Ltd. to Rhodonite, Sanjhi Foodco and Ayush Enterprises. We find that no attempt has been made to find out which of these consignments of Rhodonite were sold to appellant No.1. Neither Shri T.K. Rajgopal has been asked these details. All that Shri Rajgopal stated that he sold about 400 MT of rutile to Shri Poonamchand Malu. We also note that Shri Poonamchand Malu in his statement has denied this part of the statement of Shri T.K. Rajgopal and he has stated that he has purchased few consignments through broker alone. Thus there is a vast difference between what is admitted purchase of rutile from Rhodonite as claimed by Shri Sanjay Malu or Shri Poonamchand Malu
As far as the show cause notice dated 21.11.2003 is concerned, we set aside the demands covered by annexure-I, annexure-IV and annexure-V. The demands raised in annexure-II and annexure-III are upheld. Coming to the penalty amount, the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excised Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is reduced to the duty amount covered by annexure-II and III - there is no evidence that the unit would have crossed SSI exemption limit, we reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation to ₹ 1,00,000/-. The unaccounted drawn wire rods were also not recorded in any books of account. The confiscation is in order and the fine imposed is not on the higher side and the same is upheld. As far as penalty under Rule 26 on appellant No.2 is concerned, in our view, without any evidence whether the turnover of appellant No.2 would cross the SSI exemption limit and also keeping in view the duty involved on the goods seized, we reduce the penalty imposed to ₹ 1,00,000/- under Rule 26. Penalties have also been imposed on appellant No.3 and 5 under Rule 26 read with Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Keeping in view the overall facts of the modus operandi etc. and their active involvement, the penalty imposed on them is reasonable and is, therefore, upheld. - Decided partly in favour of assessees.
............
|
