TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest is not attracted. Further, the Director in his statement accepted that the goods have been removed without payment of duty, therefore, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly confirmed the penalty on the Director and the employee. However, considering the overall circumstances of the case, and considering that the appellant company has paid 25% of the penalty imposed, in the interest o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e visit of the officers is leviable and whether personal penalty on the Director and the employee are imposable or otherwise. 4. The Ld. Advocate Shri S.J. Vyas for the appellant submits that when the shortage of goods was noticed during the visit of the officers to their factory immediately the Central Excise duty of ₹ 6,19,240/- was paid. It is his contention that the interest under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, considering the overall circumstances of the case, and considering that the appellant company has paid 25% of the penalty imposed, in the interest of justice, the penalty on Director is reduced to ₹ 50,000/- and employee is reduced to ₹ 5,000/-. The impugned order is modified to this extent and appeal filed by the appellant company challenging the levy of interest is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
