TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charging 25% of the penalty imposed. The penalty on the Director is concerned, on going through the orders of the authorities below find that the appellant-Director Sri V.K.Jain had accepted/ratified the statement of their DGM admitting the clearances of goods without payment of duty and the demand has been confirmed on the basis of said statements. In these circumstance, do not see any reason for non-imposition of penalty on the Director as his role on removal of goods without payment of duty has been fairly established. However, keeping in view the amount of duty involved, personal penalty equal to the duty amount imposed on the Director is too harsh. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is appropriate that the penalty on the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02. 3. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants have preferred appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order of the adjudicating authority and rejected the appeals. Hence, the present appeals. 4. Ld. Representative Sri S.Sarkar for the appellants submits that in the present appeals they do not dispute about the liability of duty and penalty imposed on the appellant company. However, their grievance is that while confirming penalty against the appellant company, even after payment of entire amount of duty and interest, benefit of payment of 25% of the penalty imposed has not been extended to them. Further, he submits that there is no evidence against Mr. V.K.Jain, Director about his involvement in the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this issue is covered by a plethora of cases including by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I vs. Krishnaram Dyeing and Finishing Works, 2013 (298) E.L.T 376 (GUJ). Accordingly, the appellants are eligible to the benefit of discharging 25% of the penalty imposed. 7. As far as the penalty on the Director is concerned, on going through the orders of the authorities below, I find that the appellant-Director Sri V.K.Jain had accepted/ratified the statement of their DGM admitting the clearances of goods without payment of duty and the demand has been confirmed on the basis of said statements. In these circumstance, I do not see any reason for non-imposition of penalty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
