9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Electroplating Chemicals like Gold Potassium Cynide (GPC). Consequent to the visit of officers to their factory premises on 12.07.2001 and after necessary investigation, it was alleged that the Appellant had manufactured andcleared the excisable goods without payment of duty. A demand notice was issued to them on 06.6.2005 for recovery of duty of Rs. 2,29,360/- and proposal for imposition of penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty of equal amount was imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Besides, personal penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules 2002 was imposed on the Director of the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has erred in reducing the mandatory penalty imposed under Sec. 11AC of CEA,1944 from Rs. 2,29,360/- to Rs. 1.00 lakh being contrary to the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC). He has further submitted that the admission of the Director in his statement was corroborated by the Panchnama drawn in their factory premises that they had received the gold 2491.14 gms and produced GPC 3534.91 gms during the period from 04.3.2001 to 02.7.2001 and the manufactured goods were cleared clandestinely without payment of duty as they could not furnish any specific name with address of any of the supplier of gold or the buyer of the G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating authority is restored. However, the Appellant are eligible to exercise the option to pay 25% of the said penalty amount of Rs. 2,29,360/- in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CCE Vs Harish Silk Mills 2010 (255) ELT 393 (Guj.) and CCE Vs G.P.Presstress Concrete Works 2015 (323) ELT 709 (Guj).on fulfillment of the conditions laid down under Sec. 11AC of CEA,1944
7. In the result, the Appeal No.E/811/2007 filed by the Appellant Company is partly allowed as above. The appeal No.E/812/2007 filed by Shri Chandraknt L. Shah, Director of the Appellant Company is rejected. Revenue s appeal E/964/2007 is allowed.
( Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court ) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
