TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion - Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, a penalty of ₹ 5 lakh should be imposed on Shri Pritpal Singh, Director under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - majority order - Held that: - though the difference of opinion is on the merits of imposing penalty under Rule, 26, the issue has become infructuous and redundant in view of both the points raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent - there could be no proceedings further by appeal against the impugned order which dropped the demand against Shri. Pritpal Singh, Director. The reference is returned to the Division Bench for further decision. - E/880-881/2008-DB - Final Order No. 62267-62268/2018 - Dated:- 23-4-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing through the said decision, we note that there is no ratio of law declared by the Tribunal in the said decision. On the contrary, we find that the issue stands decided by the Tribunal decision in the case Premier Rubber Factory vs. CCE 1990 (47) ELT 125 (Tribunal), laying down that, exemption cannot be denied even if the goods are removed clandestinely. To the same effect is the Tribunal decision in the case of P.R. Industries vs. CCE, Delhi 2016 (344) ELT 234 (Tri. Del.). As such, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). 4. As regards penalty on the Director, the appellate authority has set-aside the same on the ground that, since the manufacturing unit is penalised to the full extent, there is no jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory in his statement dated 30.8.2005 stated that purchase of scrap and sale of finished goods was being looked after only by Shri Pritpal Singh, Director and he did the work as assigned by Shri Pritpal Singh to him from time to time. It is also evident from the statement dated 30.1.2006 of Shri Pritpal Singh, director that he was fully controlling the production and various personnel in the factory including the one unknown person, who was claimed to be looking after the works of their unit. It was Shri Pritpal Singh, who provided separate figures vide his letter dated 5.10.2005 and item-wise break-up of electricity consumption in the production. 8. I also find that in the connected seizure case of same appellant, this Tribunal vide Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Director as held by Hon ble Member (Judicial). (Devender Singh) Member (Technical) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Per. B. Ravichandran:- The issue referred to the third Member for resolution of difference of opinion is with reference to penalty imposed on Shri Pritpal Singh, Director of the assessee company. The Members of the Division Bench had different view regarding sustainability of penalty imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. I have heard the learned AR for the Revenue and the learned Counsel for the respondent/assessee. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that without going into the merits of the case, the issue become infructuous as the Director passed aw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
