TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the said activity of the Appellant of clandestine manufacture and clearance of GPC. Therefore, I do not find any reason to record a different finding than that arrived at by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Reduction of mandatory penalty - Held that:- I do not see any justification in the impugned order in reducing mandatory penalty imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 from ₹ 2,29,360/- to ₹ 1.00 lakhs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the mandatory penalty imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be reduced. Also, I do not find any reason to interfere with the penalty imposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 2.00 lakhs under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules 2002 was imposed on the Director of the Appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions advanced by the Appellant and the evidences on record, confirmed the demand but reduced the pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a 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 GPC and all the transactions were against cash payment without issue of any invoice. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Director is not liable for imposition of penalty. However, he has fairly accepted that the authorities below had not extended the optio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
