TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rugs & Organics Ltd. is fully justified. Penalty u/s 11AC - benefit of reduced penalty - Held that:- The option of paying 25% of penalty along with full duty and interest within 30 days is extended to the appellant. Appeal allowed in part. - Misc. Application No. E/ORS/10797/2015-DB, Appeal No. E/860,861,1879/2010-DB - A/12582-12584/2018 - Dated:- 14-11-2018 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For Appellant: Sh. S.J. Vyas Amal Dave (Advocate) For Respondent: Mr. Gobind Jha (AR) ORDER Per: Raju This appeal has been filed by M/s N H Harsora Pvt. Ltd., Pradeep N Harsora and Mangalam Drugs Organics Ltd. against confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty, imposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gone through rival submissions. We find that this was a case of blatant misuse of self-removal procedure under Central Excise. The appellant had issued parallel invoices for clearance of goods without payment of duty. Evidence in the shape of the invoices was recovered from the dealers and was confirmed by the buyers. 5. The appellants have not seriously contested the demand except for the issue of limitation in case of clearance to Mangalam Drugs Organics Ltd. In the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. (supra), the Larger Bench has observed as follows: 13. In the light of the above discussion, we answer the reference as under: (a) Revenue neutrality being a question of fact, the same is to be established in the facts of each case and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant was an employee of the Company and was dealing with the goods in the official capacity as an employee and in such circumstances penalty should not be imposed. 8. It is seen from the impugned order that Sh. Pradeep N. Harsora was Director of the appellant firm. The signatures on the invoices are his own. During the statements recorded, it is clear that Sh. Pradeep N. Harsora was fully aware of what is going on and was took active part in the said illegal activity. Consequently ingredients of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 are clearly set aside. The appeal of Sh. Pradeep N. Harsora is therefore, dismissed. 9. Ld. Counsel argued that in case of M/s. Mangalam Drugs Organics Ltd. the imposition of penalty is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. The limited issue to be decided is in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the appellant is liable for penalty under Rule 26 which reads as under:- Any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or (rupees two thousand) whichever is greater. (2) Any person, who issues (i) an excise duty invoice without delivery of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the natural individual person and not on the artificial person or company because the goods is handled by natural living person and not by an artificial entity. Therefore, on both the counts, penalty under Rule 26 is not imposable. From the above, it is apparent that it does not in any manner states that penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed on the appellant. In view of above, the penalty is sustained. 11. Since the case involved blatant misuse of the trust placed by Revenue on the assessee and the appellants have cleared the goods without preparing invoices, the imposition of penalties on the main appellant as well as Sh. Pradeep Harsora and Mangalam Drugs Organics Ltd. is fully justified. 12. The appellant have also co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
