2000 (3) TMI 783

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. -  The appellant herein, which is a proprietory concern, challenges the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. Penalty has been imposed for the reason that the appellant received branded goods which were liable to duty, cleared without payment of duty, rendering the goods liab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. Krishna Gupta, mother of Rajiv Gupta. The fact that Rajiv Gupta has settled the matter of penalty against him under the KVS Scheme, is no ground for contending that penalty is not warranted upon the proprietory concern. The appellant does not deny the finding that M/s. Shakti Tar Udyog had received branded goods without payment of duty from M/s. Shakti Shiva Magnet P. Ltd. Therefore, provisions .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... concern, M/s. Sunny Enterprises, since its proprietor Baljit Singh had been individually held liable to penalty. In the case of Broadway Textiles Ltd. & Others v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur reported in 1999 (35) RLT 729, the Tribunal has categorically held that there is no finding in the adjudication order about the role of each appellant so as to warrant imposition of penalty. 5.  .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X