Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (12) TMI 865

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bunal has passed the order No. S/311/14/EB/C-II dated 27/5/2014 and directed company to make pre-deposit of 50% of the total duty evaded. In the said order all the issues such as merit of the case and principle of natural justice have been carefully considered and passed a very detailed and reasoned order and this Tribunal found a prima facie case of evasion of duty. As regard the role of the present appellants in the case, it is observed that Shri. Manoj Pyarelal Mittal, Managing Director of the Company deliberately with a planned modus-operandi by preparing parallel Central Excise invoices have evaded excise duty. As regard the role of Shri. Yogesh Kumar Mittal, he has knowingly helped the company and Shri. Manoj Pyarelal Mittal by re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... amesh Nair These appeals and stay applications are directed against Order-in- Original No. 88/MAK(88) COMMR/RGD/13-14 dtd. 25/10/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, Mumbai wherein penalty of ₹ 18,00,000/- and 9,00,000/- were imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellants, Shri. Manoj Pyarelal Mittal and Shri. Yegesh Kumar Mittal respectively for aiding and abating evasion of Central Excise duty of ₹ 88,79,846/- by the Company, M/s. Simco Paints Industries Pvt. Ltd., wherein present appellants are Managing Director and Manager respectively. The fact of the case is that Company, M/s. Simco Paints Industries Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture of paints. On inves .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uld be granted unconditional stay. He further submits that the impugned order was passed ex parte and therefore there is denial of principal of natural justice. He submits that their request for cross examination before adjudicating authority was not allowed therefore order passed ex-parte without following the principle of natural justice is not sustainable and accordingly appellants deserve for unconditional stay order. He submits that penalty under Rule 26 was imposed without satisfying the essential ingredients such as goods should be confiscated. He submits that in the present case goods were not confiscated therefore penalty under Rule 26 is not sustainable. He placed reliance on the following judgments. (a) [2008(229) ELT 80(Tri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd perused the record. 5. In the case of duty evasion by the company wherein present appellants are directors, this Tribunal has passed the order No. S/311/14/EB/C-II dated 27/5/2014 and directed company to make pre-deposit of 50% of the total duty evaded. In the said order all the issues such as merit of the case and principle of natural justice have been carefully considered and passed a very detailed and reasoned order and this Tribunal found a prima facie case of evasion of duty. As regard the role of the present appellants in the case, it is observed that Shri. Manoj Pyarelal Mittal, Managing Director of the Company deliberately with a planned modus-operandi by preparing parallel Central Excise invoices have evaded excise duty. As r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ll be liable to a penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. From the above rule it can be seen that the penalty under Rule 26(i) is imposable on the person who has knowledge that the goods is liable for confiscation. In the present case, while clearance of excisable goods clandestinely without payment of excise duty, both the appellants were having full knowledge that goods are liable for duty and clearance of the same without payment of duty make goods liable for confiscation. Therefore act of the appellants are more than sufficient to invoke Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Since this Tribunal has already taken prima facie view as regard evasion of excise duty against the com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates