9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been filed by the Revenue against the common order in appeal dated 25-9-1999 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on Shri Rajeev Gupta, respondent and of Rs. 10,000/- on Shri Tarsem Lal Singla, respondent which was imposed on both of them by the Deputy Commissioner through order in original dated 16-6-1998. 2. The facts are not much in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in original ordered confiscation of the goods and also imposed redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- for release of the truck and of Rs. 75,000/- for the release of the goods. Besides this he also imposed penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the company under Rule 173-Q and of Rs. 10,000/- on respondent Tarsem Lal Singla under Rule 209-A as he was manager of the appellant company at that time and of Rs. 1,00,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t with, by penalising the company (manufacturer) heavily. 5. The Revenue has come up in appeal against the above order in appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty against the present respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents at the very outset contended that when the company (manufacturer) got the duty liability settled under the KVS Scheme by paying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the goods and also imposed penalty on that company. The present respondents were only at that time were working in that company as Manager and Managing Director respectively. They were acting on behalf of the company apparently. 9. It also remains undisputed that the company got the duty and penalty liability settled under the KVS Scheme and paid the adjudicated amount as per the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commissioner (Appeals) that provisions of Rule 225 of the Rules already stood fully met with, by penalising the manufacturer heavily and there was no evidence to connect both these respondents directly with the clandestine removal of the goods. 11. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly valid and does not need any interfere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
