TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority on Respondents were set aside. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 15-3-2005 the Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the respondent and conducted stock verif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty and appropriated the amount as deposited by the respondent. He also imposed penalty of equal amount on the respondent company under Section 11AC of the Act and Rs. 25,000/- on respondent No. 2 i.e. Shri Abhishek Jaiswal, Director. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties. Hence, the Revenue filed these appeals. 3. Learned D.R. on behalf of the Revenue submits that respondent No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Ludhiana v. Omkar Steel, reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 200. 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that shortage was detected during stock verification by the Central Excise officers. It is seen that the authorized signatory and the Director of the company, both have admitted clearance of goods without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person under this section shall be 25% of the duty so determined. In the present case the respondent deposited the duty before issuance of show cause notice and, therefore, penalty is imposable 25% of the duty i.e. Rs. 38,732/- (Rupees thirty eight thousand seven hundred thirty two only). Regarding imposition of penalty on respondent No. 2, I find that there is no material that he had knowledge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
