9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been imposed upon the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.1 A case was booked against M/s. Ramdas Ispat & Metals Pvt. Ltd. (RIMPL) for clandestine clearance of M.S. ingots. One of the recipients of the goods clandestinely cleared is M/s. Rutuja Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (RIPL). 2.2 Appellant is/was one of the directors of RIPL. 2.3 The case against RIMPL was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner vide his order referred to in para 1 above. No other person other than the present appellant has filed any appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 2.4 The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Hence this appeal is filed before this Tribunal. 3.1 This matter has been l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and during the course of argument. 4.2 While upholding the penalty as imposed by the Additional Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as follows:- "........ The lower authority at para 21 of the impugned order has analyzed the statement of Shri Prashant Shivkumar Chavan, Ex- Accountant of M/s. RIPL who was unequivocal in stating that the appellant in his capacity as Director of M/s. RIPL had paid the consideration in cash to M/s. RIMPL towards clandestinely cleared 1078.11 MT of Ingots. The appellant has neither countered this finding of the lower authority nor produced any evidence to nullify the same. As the penalty has been imposed under Rule 26 of CER, 2002, it is imperative to have a look on the said Rule which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic and hence not acceptable. The act of paying the main noticee M/s. RIMPL in cash as consideration towards the clandestinely cleared 1078.11 MT of MS Ingots is not only nefarious but also deplorable on the aforesaid Rule 26. I therefore find no cogent reason or evidence on record to interfere with the finding of the lower authority." 4.3 From the facts available on record, I observe that penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been imposed on the company in which the appellant was Director and Rs. 3,00,000/- has been imposed on the appellant. In my view, ends of justice will be met if the penalty imposed on the appellant is reduced from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5.0 As a result, the appeal is partially allowed reducing the penalty imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
