9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal against the impugned order for imposing of penalty of Rs.1,93,917 under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and against imposition of redemption fine of Rs.3 lakhs under Section 34 of the Central Excise Act for confiscation of the goods valued at Rs.14,05,895/-. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the appellants, factory which were allowed to be released under bond and a show-cause notice was issued thereafter for imposition of penalty and imposition of redemption fine on the appellant. Thereafter redemption fine of Rs.3 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant and a penalty under Rule 26 was also imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved by the said imposition of fine and penalty appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d only Rs.10,000/-. With these prayers, he submitted that the impugned order be set aside. 4. On the other hand, ld. SDR appeared and submitted that penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed on a person as per law and in the case of Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd. vs. CCE 2010 (250) ELT 94 this Tribunal has held that under Rule 26, the person does not mean merely living person. Every tax payer com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a mistake by their godown keeper, therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the redemption fine to Rs.50,000/-. 8. With regard to the penalty under Rule 26 again, we do agree with the contention of the DR that in Twenty First Century a penalty can be imposed on a juristic person as per law and the corporate body is also a juristic person in the eyes of law. Penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
