9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR These are two appeals against the common impugned Order-In-Appeal whereby, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty of Rs.20,000 /- & Rs.8,000/- respectively. The penalty were imposed under Rule 26 with reference to a case of duty evasion made against the employer company of the appellant. 02. When the matter was called out, none appeared on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by learned Authorized Representative and perused the records. From the statement of the appellant with reference to the case against the company, there is a clear admission that the appellant have manipulated the cost of the product and the goods were clandestinely removed from the premises of the Job Worker. In these appeals, the appellant's plea is that he was working as Import/Export Manager ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f conversion of Lead Ingots into Litharge. They were knowingly concerned in all the activities of the Company and therefore they were concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling and purchasing the excisable goods/Cenvetable goods which they knew or had reason to believe were liable to confiscation under Central Excise Act, 1944. 7. The appellant has contended th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, reduced the penalty Rs.20,000/- and Rs.8,000/- respectively. From the above finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), I do not find any infirmity. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has already taken a lenient view and substantially reduced the penalty from Rs.50000/- and Rs.20,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.8,000/- respectively. The role of the appellant is clearly established therefore, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
