9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory premises of Dhananjay Pharma P. Ltd. (for short DPL) who are doing the job work for the appellant. The officers found a sizable quantity of excisable goods Aten-25, Aten-50, Aten-100 and other pharmaceutical goods and raw material packed in drums having labels pasted thereof containing details of such as description, batch numbers, date of manufacture, Sr. No. of the drum and appellant s name etc. On enquiry with the staff, it was revealed that the said goods were received from M/s. Kopran Ltd. without payment of central excise duty and without cover of transport documents. The goods were seized under a panchnama and various statements of staff and executives of appellant and DPL were recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 194 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise Rules, 2002 as the penalty under Section 11Ac is suffice. I impose penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs only) to M/s. DPPL Ltd. under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Also I impose personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only) each to Shri Vijay Ramchandra Tamhankar, Vice President, Shri Pradeep Kulkarni, GM and Shri C. Prem Kumar Nair, Assistant Manager of M/s. Kopran Ltd. & Shri Bharat R. Mishra, Director of M/s. DPPL under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. I order for recovery of interest as applicable under Section 11AA & 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944." 2. Being aggrieved by the above Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... job work was nowhere recorded in any of the records of the appellant nor any document was issued. Therefore, the removal of the goods will be treated as clandestine removal without payment of excise duty. Therefore, the demand confirmed by the lower authorities is in our considered view, as per the statutory provisions. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. 6. As regards the penalties imposed on various employees of the appellant company we are of the view that since the goods were cleared with their knowledge and they have malafide intention, not followed the procedure, no account for the removal in the books, they were of the belief that the goods are liable for confiscation; accordingly penalty under Rule 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
