TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f M/s Pocono is liable to set-aside, as he is already penalized as Director of M/s. Bakul on the same transaction. The imposition of penalty on Smt. A.A. Majmudar proprietress of M/s Shonar, we find that Smt. A.A. Majmudar had knowingly involved in irregular availment of the SSI exemption by M/s. Bakul. Hence, the imposition of penalty on her is justified. - Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act, or these rules, shall be liable to a pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 64,87,686.13 along with interest on M/s Bakul for the period 1984-1985 to December, 1989 and also imposed penalty of ₹ 5,00,000.00 each on M/s Bakul, M/s Pocono and M/s Shonar under Rule 173 Q (1) (1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rule, 1944. The land, building, Plant, Machinery etc. of M/s Bakul was confiscated and imposed redemption fine of ₹ 2 00,000.00. It has imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000.00 each on Shri A.R. Majmudar M.D of M/s Bakul, Shri A.R. Majmudar, partner of M/s Pocono, Smt. A.A. Majmudar Proprietor of M/s Shonar under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appeal filed M/s Bakul was dismissed by the Tribunal fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emption. He relied upon the various case laws as under:- 1. Commissioner of Central Excise., Jameshedpur vs. Xenon 2013 (296) E.L.T. 26 (Jhar.) 2. P B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise 2003 (153) E.L.T 14 (S.C.) 3. ECE Industreis Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise New Delhi 2004 (164) E.L.T 236 (S.C.) 4. Nizam Sugar Factory vs. Collector of Central Excise 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) 5. Pravin N. Shah vs. CESTAT 2014 (305) E.L.T. 480 (Guj.) 6. CCE, Surat-II vs. Mohammed Farookh Mohammed Ghani 2010 (259) E.L.T 179 (Guj.) 7. Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Jai Prakash Motwani 2010 (258) E.L.T. 204 (Guj.) 8. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II vs. Mahendra Kumar Kapad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 1,00,000.00 each. Smt. A. A. Majmudar, proprietor of M/s Shonar filed appeal against imposition of penalty of ₹ 1,00,000.00 under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Learned Advocate submitted that the appeal filed by the main appellant M/s Bakul was dismissed by the Tribunal for non-compliance of the stay order. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Adjudicating Authority observed that M/s Pocono and M/s Shonar were floated by M/s Bakul with the sole intention to avail the benefit of SSI exemption and evading the Central Excise Duty. The actual production and manufacturing activity were undertaken by them in M/s Bakul and just on paper, they were showing the clearances from the premises of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shonar are dummy and therefore, the imposition of penalty on the said dummy units cannot be sustained. The Honble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Jamshedpur vs Xenon, 2013 (296) E.L.T. 26 (Jhar.) held that penalty could not have been imposed upon the fictitious company. 7. Regarding imposition of penalty on Shri A.R. Majmudar and Smt. A.A. Majmudar, we find force in the submission of the Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue. A penalty of ₹ 1,00,000.00 each was imposed on Shri A.R. Majmudar as M.D. of M/s Bakul and partner of M/s Pocono. The Adjudicating Authority observed that Smt. A.A. Majmudar, during the investigation admitted that she was looking after the working of M/s. Shonar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods. Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act, or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty. The expressions in any other reasons have wide amplitude. It is the case of Revenue that Mrs. Majmudar knowing fully was involved in wrong availment of benefit of SSI exemption by M/s. Bakul, who cleared the goods without payment of duty, liable for confiscation. 9. In view of the above discussions, penalties imposed on M/s Shonar, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
