2002 (1) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds against M/s. R. Kumar Spun Tex (P) Ltd. [Appellant in Appeal No. E/2306/01-NB(S)] and, by show cause notice, proposed to impose penalty on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also penalty on the Company's Director Sh. Rajendra R. Ahuja under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,43,606/- on the goods in question having been paid by the Company prior to issuance of the show cause notice, the Department, in the show cause notice, proposed to confirm the duty against them. The proposals in the notice were contested. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty against the Company and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 1,43,606/-under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e penalty imposed on the Director under Rule 209A is not founded on any evidence against him. He, therefore, seeks waiver of pre-deposit of this penalty as well. He further points out that the case law, already cited, supports the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty imposed under Rule 209A on the Director. 4. Ld. SDR, Sh. A.S. Bedi opposes the above prayer. He submits that the penalty of Rs. 1,43,606/- was imposed not merely under Section 11AC but cumulatively under both Section 11AC and Rule 173Q and, therefore, complete waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount is not warranted. As regards the penalty imposed on the Director, ld. SDR submits that the applicant had, in his statement given under Section 14 of the Central .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which shows that he had admitted that he was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the Company and that the goods in question had been cleared without payment of duty or complying with other Central Excise formalities. It is also an admitted fact that the payment of duty was not under protest. The Director was apparently aware of the duty liability. In my view, he has not been able to establish a strong prima facie case, though, of course, there may be an arguable case. It further appears that the Director has not pleaded any financial hardships for himself. Therefore, Sh. Rajendra R. Ahuja is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- within six weeks from today and report compliance on 4-3-2002. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of reco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X