Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 1069 - CESTAT AHMEDABADImposition of penalty u/s 11AC of CEA,1944 against the appellant company - personal penalty u/r 26 of CER, 2002 on the Director - benefit of 25% of penalty u/s 11AC - clearance goods wrongly availing the benefit of Notification at NIL rate, by classifying the goods as Agricultural machineries - Cotton Ginning Machineries falling under Chapter 84, 85 of CETA, 1985 - Held that: - all the facts necessary in the clearance of goods as agricultural machinery had not been disclosed at the time of its removal from the factory. I find the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded reasons in justifying the demand as well as imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the Appellant Company. Hence, the same do not call for interference - from the evidences as recorded and analysed in the impugned order, the role of the Director has not been specifically discussed and brought out the fact that non-payment of duty was at his instance. In these circumstances, the personal penalty on the Director is unwarranted and accordingly set aside. As far as Revenue's Appeal is concerned of reduction of penalty to 25%, the issue is no more res-integra and settled by the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise,Surat-I Vs. Krishnaram Dyeing & Finishing Works [2013 (8) TMI 539 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - the benefit to discharge 25% of the penalty imposed u/s 11AC of CEA,1944 has been rightly extended to the Appellant by the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals). Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellants and Revenue's claim rejected.
|