TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the discussion with regard to the confirmation of penalty is very brief that itself cannot deter us from upholding such findings of the Tribunal inasmuch as the Tribunal, while concurring with the reasonings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in imposing the penalty need not have elaborated his role and the provision of Rule 26. It also need not have any specific terms holding the person liable for penalty with both the adjudicating authorities below have discussed elaborately the role of appellant and the order of the Tribunal also attributes such clandestine removal and confirmation of demand of duty to the Director of SAPL against the company also the penalty has been confirmed in way of confirmation of demand on duty. - Decided against ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Commissioner (Appeals), there is hardly any discussion worth the name to hold appellant liable and therefore, on account of the order being non-speaking the same requires to be quashed. 3. She even on merits contended that the imposition of penalty is in contravention of law of evidence. As there is absolutely no basis to point out any knowledge on the part of the present appellant in respect of alleged concealment, transportation etc. of the goods. Learned counsel further argued that the Rule 26 is very clear that the penalty can be imposed only on excisable goods having rendered liable for confiscation under the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Since show cause notice does not propose any confiscation of goods, on that ground alone, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnatory of third factory. 7. A show cause notice was issued by the Department on 23-11-2006 alleging that with mutual understanding of few selected buyers, excisable goods (aluminium coils) were removed surreptitiously, without accounting the same in statutory records and without issuance of Central Excise invoices and thereby the payment of Central Excise duty payable thereon was evaded. 8. After due adjudication, the duty demand was confirmed for the sum of ₹ 1,23,12,313/- with interest as applicable from SAPL who was also required to pay equal amount of duty. Penalty of ₹ 25 Lakhs was imposed on present appellant. 9. When challenged before the Tribunal, it extensively dealt with the issue and confirmed the penalty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not confiscated or not have been rendered liable for confiscation, while indulging into any of the activities concerning such goods, provision of Rule 26 would be attracted. 10.3 As can be noted in the elaborate discussion conducted by the Tribunal, while confirming the duty demand in respect of various industries it has noted the manner in which clandestine removal of goods was made. The Tribunal noted that the department had based its case to support clandestine removal without payment of duty on the record seized in the search operation and also on the statements recorded of authorized signatory and excise incharge, watchman, director. All these companies and director and authorised signatory B.R. Overseas one of the buyers and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alysed the case of each buyer and reduced the total duty demand from total quantity of 567.367 metric valued at ₹ 5,28,37,316/- to ₹ 86,23,050/-. It also confirmed the penalty against the SAPL giving an option to pay the duty interest and penalty @ 25% of the duty amount towards within 30 days of its order and likewise confirmed the penalty against the present appellant reducing the same to ₹ 15 lakhs from ₹ 25 lakhs in consonance with the reduction in duty demand. 12. As can be seen from the record the extensive role attributed to the present appellant as a Director to M/s. SAPL to M/s. Deora Wires (DWNMPL) as also an authorised signatory of SHEL, not only he had knowledge at every stage, while removing, keeping, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
