TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority's order. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant is a partner of M/s. Prabhat Steel Industries (herein after referred as assessee). The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of MS angles, channels, beams falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of intelligence received by the DRI, indicating that Shri Bhaskar Parekh and Shri Kirit Doshi brokers of TMT/CTD and M/s. Channels Structures were facilitating sale of these goods, cleared clandestinely without payment of Central Excise duty by other such manufacturers. Statement of the brokers and Shri Girish Jain were recorded and proceedings were initiated against the brokers and the appellant. While adjudicating the case, the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. Mahendra Kumar Kapadia - 2010 (260) ELT 51 and CCE vs. Jai Prakash Motwani - 2010 (258) ELT 204 (Guj.). He further submitted that the above cases were also cited by the learned Counsel before the Commissioner (Appeals) however the same were not considered. 5. The learned JDR vehemently argued that in the statement dated 12.10.2006 the appellant admitted that the goods were cleared from his factory clandestinely without paying of Central Excise duty. He heavily relied up on the statement of Shri Girish Jain wherein he stated that Shri Bhaskar Parekh used to get in touch and used to order for materials. He placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Prakash Metal Works vs. Collector of Central Excise., Ahmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the reduced amount of penalty, therefore the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Amrit Foods (supra) is not relevant to this case. So far as the case law cited by the appellant in the case of Mona Dyeing and Printing Mills vs. CCE Surat - 2010 (254) ELT 141 (Tri. - Ahmd.) wherein the Tribunal held that 'the learned Advocate pleaded leniency in view of the fact that the penalty under Section 11AC has been imposed on the firm and the payment of duty there made before issue of show-cause notice. Taking these facts into account we consider it appropriate to set aside the penalty imposed on the partner'. In the case of Mahendra Kumar Kapadia (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat held that 'no separate penalty is imposable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
