9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- along with interest has been confirmed. The impugned order also imposes a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant No.1 viz., VPPL and a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on appellant No.2 viz., Shri Rajan Shinde, Executive Director of the appellant-company. The appellants are mainly contesting the penalties imposed on them. 2. The brief facts are that: (i) The Appellant, VPPL is engaged in manufacture of sugar falling under Chapter Subheading 1701 and molasses under Chapter Subheading 1703 of Central Excise Tariff. (ii) Appellant No.2 is Shri Rajan Shinde, Executive Director of the appellant M/s. VPPL. (iii) Central Excise officers intercepted and seized four tankers of appellant-company, VPPL on 21.12.2002 containing 53.520 MTs of mola ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. (iii) The show-cause notice (SCN), except for the statement of personnel of appellant-company and the drivers of the tankers did not adduce the charges of clandestine clearances. (iv) Shri Rajan Shinde in his statement categorically stated that shortage of molasses was due to evaporation and natural causes. (v) No Mahazar has been drawn for the physical stock verification conducted at the appellant s factory and this shows that standard procedure of stock verification to be carried out in the presence of Pancha witnesses was not followed. (vi) Therefore, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on appellant No.1 is not sustainable. (vii) The impugned order does not give any findings as to how the appellant No.2 had concerned himself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ponsibility of complying with the law of Central Excise in respect of payment of appropriate duty of Central Excise and following the right procedures as prescribed by the law of Central Excise. When there has been no explanation for the subject clearances of 53.520 MTs of molasses without Central Excise invoices, by him or by the appellant-company, where the appellant No.2 is the Executive Director, he is to be held responsible for the lapses pointed out in the show-cause notice (SCN) issued. Further, there has not been any reasonable explanation for the shortage of 1055.68 MTs of molasses. In this regard also appellant No.2 has to own the responsibility. However, considering the fact that he has been overall in-charge and not looking afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
