TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. - Held that:- There are confessional statements of responsible personnel of the appellant number one, which indicate that there was concerted effort of clearing the goods clandestinely. The entire clandestine activity was also supported by the transaction books which were recovered from appellant number one. We find that appellant number one has mainly cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly, we uphold the order that confirms the demands on them with the consequences of interest and penalty. - We do not find any reason to set aside such a reasoned order for the imposition of penalty. However, the appellant being an individual, we reduce the penalty imposed on the appellant number 2 - Appeal disposed of. - Appeal No. E/886/10 and 1036/10 - Final Order Nos. A/3423-3424/2015-WZ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresented by counsel Shri A.K. Singh. 4. The relevant facts that arise for consideration in these appeals are whether the appellant number one was engaged in clandestine clearances of the goods without payment of duty or otherwise, and whether appellant number 2 is liable to be penalized under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. 5. We heard both sides and perused the records. 6. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the responsible person of appellant number one that MS bars were manufactured and cleared without payment of duty. We find that the entire evidence on which the revenue has relied upon was acquired from the broker who dealt with the appellant number one, for the sale of goods, clandestinely. We have perused the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant number one who is not contesting any o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. On the face of such evidence, we have to hold that appellant number 2 having dealt with the goods which are liable for confiscation, penalty provisions were correctly invoked to impose penalty on him. We do not find any reason to set aside such a reasoned order for the imposition of penalty. However, the appellant being an individual, we reduce the penalty imposed on the appellant number 2 to & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
