TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout bills- substantial reduction in penalties from from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.5,00,000/- appeal of assessee partly allowed. - E/1152/2006- Ex(BR) - - - Dated:- 29-6-2011 - Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri M. Veeraiyan, JJ. Appearance: Ms. Tanushree Sinha, Advocate for the Appellants Shri B.K. Singh, Jt.CDR for the Respondent Per M. Veeraiyan (for the Bench): This is an appeal challenging the penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on the appellant under Rule 209 A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001and CE Rules, 2002 by the order of the Commissioner No. 147/2005 dated 28.10.05. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Commissioner by the impugned order, in pursuance to SCN dated 14.5.04 con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production and clandestine removal cannot be held to have been established. Without prejudice to that she submits that the appellant has not dealt with the goods knowing that they were liable for confiscation and therefore, no penalty should be imposed on the appellants. She submits that as a paid employee, the appellant has only performed his professional functions, and therefore, no penalty should be sustained. In this regard she relies on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Jyantilal Thakker and Co. vs. UOI reported in [2006 (195) ELT 9]. 4.3 Alternatively, considering the facts that the appellant was only a poorly paid employee she seeks leniency and reduction of the penalty. 5. Learned Jt. CDR on the ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivities leading to evasion of duty and they were held liable to pay penalties, though the quantum of penalties were reduced vide Tribunal's order dated 6.8.2010. Therefore, the contention of the learned Advocate, that the charge of suppression of production and clandestine removal of the same cannot be held to have been established cannot be accepted. The Commissioner has given detailed findings on the role of the present appellant in paragraph 178 and 179 of the order in original. It has come on record that the appellant, as accountant has admitted that there were production and clearance of finished goods (as reflected in RG 1 register) on 18.10.2000, 19.10.2000 and 20.10.2000, but no raw material was shown as received or issued for prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
