9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of the lamination goods, including inner pouch and outer packing with the brand name of the Kuber Group of Companies, for whom they were manufactured for totally valued at Rs. 23,42,795/-. 2. The godown keeper the could not produce any documents to show the stock of the goods in the godown. As per the statement of the godown Incharge as also the Manager, the said goods were received from the factory without any bill or invoices and without payment of duty. Shri Tarun Kumar Dharewa, Director, in his statement dated 15/6/04 also admitted that the goods were cleared from the factory without payment of duty. 3. Based upon above proceedings were initiated against them proposing confirmation of demand, confiscation of seized goods and imposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee to deposit 25% of the penalty alongwith demand of duty within a period of 30 days from the passing of the order. Had the penalty been imposed under Section 11AC, they would have deposited 25% of the penalty within a period of 30 days, in which case it would have been reduced to 25%. The Adjudicating Authority having imposed penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules to the extent of 100% of the duty confirmed against them has not acted in accordance with law and as such the prayer is to reduce the penalty to 25%. Similarly, in the case of the Director, the prayer stands made to reduce the penalty in as much as he was not the one looking after day-to-day function of the company. 6. After hearing the learned DR, who has submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty imposed under Rule 25. It already stand observed that Rule 25 does not require imposition of penalty to the extent of 100%. Further as a lot of time gap has passed between the date of passing of the order till date and the appellant had not deposited any penalty amount till date, I, by taking the interest factors into account reduce the penalty imposed upon M/s Jenith Laminators Pvt. Ltd. to 50% of the penalty imposed upon them. 8. As regards penalty imposed on the Directors, it is seen that Director in his statement has admitted removal of the goods from its factory to godown, without payment of duty, and as such, he is also liable to penalty. However, keeping in view the fact that the penalty on the manufacturing unit stands reduced, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
