9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ABC in short), Proprietor Shri P. Prabhakaran, who were engaged in the manufacture of 'Talcum Powder', alleging that they were wrongly availing exemption limit beyond Rs. 100 lakhs by using a dummy unit viz, M/s. Shanthi Enterprises. The original authority, interalia confirmed duty liability of Rs. 15,32,672/- on ABC, imposed equal penalty on them under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and imposed penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- on Shri P.Prabhakaran under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The original authority interalia also imposed penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- on M/s. Dorcas Market Makers Ltd. (DMML in short), who had allegedly placed separate purchase orders on ABC a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "7.5 As regards penalty imposed on appellants No.2, the lower appellate authority in para 122 of the impugned order held as under:- "122. As regards the culpability of Smt. Pushpam, I have to observe that she is a retired elementary school teacher. It is seen that after her retirement from service in the year 1990, Shri Prabhakaran used her name to be a proprietrix in M/s. Shanthi Enterprises, in 2005, which is a non-existing unit. She herself admitted that she has no knowledge about the manufacturing activities and the valuation, MRP, etc. She enormously helped her brother to obtain sales tax registration, Drug licence etc. Therefore, she is fully liable for the acts committed by her to evade Central Excise duty. Smt. Pushpam knew or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Manager (Operations) of DMML. 5. Heard both sides and have gone through the records. 6.1 In respect of the appeal filed by ABC, as per the intimation given by the ld. Advocate and as per the provisions of Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedural Rules, 1982, the appeal filed by the ABC, Proprietor Shri P. Prabhakaran shall abate. Ordered accordingly. 6.2 In respect of Smt. P. Pushpam, it is fully evident from the impugned order that her name was used as a camouflage to obtain the drug licence and sales tax registration etc. There is no allegation that she was in thick of things or that she was actively involved in the running of DMML or Shanthi Enterprises. The role ascribed to her is limited, namely that she allowed her name to be used by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
