TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of penalty on the appellant company under Section 11AC is upheld - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Appeal No. 2067 and 2473 of 2009 (SM) - Final Order No. 58112-58113/2013 - Dated:- 11-10-2013 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant : Shri R.K. Verma, Authorized Representative (DR) JUDGEMENT Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The facts during rise two these appeals are, in brief, as under. 1.1 M/s Shiv Saraswati Steel Strips (P) Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh (hereinafter referred to as appellant) are manufacturers of bars falling under Chapter heading 72142090 of the Central Excise Tariff. On 01/10/07, the Jurisdictional Central Excise officers intercepted a truck No. HR-38/3476 whose driver was Shri Tarsem Singh. On demand, the driver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emed on find of Rs. 20,000/-. On appeals being filed to Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 25/07/09 while upholding the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on the appellant company, set aside the penalty on Shri Jagtar Singh, Director of the appellant company under Rule 26. The penalty on the truck driver as well as confiscation of the truck and redemption fine was also set aside on the ground that neither the driver nor the owner of the truck had knowledge about the excess goods loaded in the vehicle. Against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the confiscation of the goods loaded in the truck the appellant have filed the appeal and against the portion of the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout payment of duty. It is also seen that though subsequently the appellant paid duty on the excess quantity, on the date of interception of the truck, there is no entry in the RG-1 register regarding clearance of the goods covered under the invoice. In view of this, so far as the Commissioner (Appeals)s order upholding the confiscation of the goods, redemption fine and imposition of penalty on the appellant company under Section 11AC is concerned, the same is upheld and as such the appeal filed by M/s Shiv Saraswati Steel Strips (P) Ltd. is concerned, is dismissed. 6. As regards the Revenues appeal, the same is against the portion of the Commissioner (Appeals)s order setting aside the imposition of penalty on Shri Jagtar Singh, Dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
