TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounts quantified by the department. Details of confessional statement are reflected in Para 26.11 of the adjudication order dated 31.03.2011. Therefore, on merits there is no case for setting aside the penalty upon the Director but there is weight in the argument of the advocate of the appellant that the main party M/s. Signora Texport Pvt. Limited has gone away with payment of only 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 11AC. Authorized signatory is liable to be penalised even if day to day business is controlled by the Director of the company. It is observed from the statement of authorised signatory in the present case that he was very much aware of clandestine activities under taken by the main company and in fact was assisting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the role played by him viz-a-viz the role played by the other appellants and the keeping in mind the Central Excise duty evaded in this case, penalty of Rs. 8 Lakhs imposed upon him and upheld by first appellate authority, is reduced to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). - Decided partly in favor of appellants. - Appeal No. : E/643 to 645 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 13-9-2013 - Mr. H.K. Thakur, J. For the Appellant: Shri Sunil Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri S.K. Mall, AR JUDGEMENT Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur; These appeals have been filed by the appellants with reference to Order-in-Appeal No CS/04-06/VAPI/SLV-III/2011-12 dated 11.05.2012 under which penalties imposed as per OIO No. 62/ADC/OA/VAPI/2010-11 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. Signora Texport Pvt. Limited and was working as per the directions of Shri Ajay Singhal, Director. It was his case that as per the judgment of Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Hitesh Patel vs. CCE, Mumbai [20009 (245) ELT 858 (Tri. Ahmd.)], no penalty is required to be imposed on the authorised signatory as he was working under the instructions of Director of the main appellant. He, therefore, argued that penalty on Shri Sandesh T. Bhingarde should be set-aside as at the time of passing of stay order dated 23.09.2012, Shri Sandesh T. Bhingarde was also not asked for any pre-deposit. 3.2 So far as imposition of penalty upon Shri Amrit K. Chauhan is concerned, he argued that the transporter had no knowledge that the goods transported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, in all the cases of clandestine removals of goods and bringing of scrap for the manufacturing activity were done by the transporter. He also made the bench go through Para 26.12 of the order in original dated 31.3.2010 where statement of Shri Amrit K. Chauhan has been reflected. It was his case that Shri Amrit K. Chauhan has categorically stated that he was not issuing any lorry receipts and that freight payments were received by him in cash @ Rs. 210/- per MT. He also stated that he was not aware of the addresses of the persons to whom the goods were finally delivered. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is seen from the case records and rival submissions that this is a case of clandestine manufacture and clearanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has gone away with payment of only 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 11AC, and accordingly held that penalty of Rs. 10 Lakh imposed on Shri Ajay S. Singhal is excessive. The penalty of Rs. 10 Lakh imposed on Shri Ajay S. Singhal, Director is reduced to Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only) under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 6.2. So far as imposition of penalty on Shri Sandesh T. Bhingarde, authorised signatory is concerned, appellant has relied upon the judgments to emphasize that he was only a paid employee working as per the direction of his employer and, therefore, no penalty is required to be imposed upon him, in view of the judgment relied upon. Countering this argument, Shri S.K. Mall, learned AR relied, inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note pad maintained for clandestine removals showed the transportation made by him in all such clearances. It is admitted by him that he did not know the exact address and name of concerns where the Ingots were delivered as he had not issued any lorry receipts. It is also accepted by him that freight charged by him from the main party was received in cash. Therefore, the conduct and act of the transporter is not free from doubt as he was not maintaining any written records like lorry receipt, registers etc. so that clandestine activities done by the main party could not be detected by any agency. Therefore, from the conduct of the transporter Shri Amrit K. Chauhan, it is clear that he was very much aware of the clandestine activities being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
