TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Mills Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (4) TMI 1076 - SUPREME COURT] has observed that the adjudication order must mention about the availability of benefit of first and second proviso of reduced penalty. Admittedly, the appellant has not been given the benefit of reduced penalty - equal penalty imposed has to be reduced to 25% of the duty demand - appeal allowed. Personal penalty on Director, Manager etc - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06 - 07 demanding ₹ 52,94,478/- alleging the following issues:- (a) Clandestine removal of excisable goods involving duty of ₹ 35,14,998/- (b) Irregular availment of credit to the extent of ₹ 15,55,686/- (c) Clearance of scrap without payment of duty of ₹ 2,23,884/- The appellants approached the Settlement Commission on the second and third issues, admitti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufficient compliance for payment of duty demand and the interest thereof. That, therefore, the appellant ought to have been given the benefit of reduced penalty. He also pleaded to set aside the personal penalty imposed on the other appellants. 3. Against this, the learned AR Shri R. Subramaniyam reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The only plea put forw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easons to interfere with the nominal penalty imposed against such persons. Therefore, the appeals filed by them are dismissed. The impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing the penalty to 25% of the duty demand and the appeals filed by C. Gunasekaran, R. Rajarajan and Albert Jeychandar is dismissed. The appeal filed by the main appellant M/s. GEECO ENERCON Pvt. Ltd . is partly allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
