9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Being aggrieved against the impugned order, the Appellant has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The Appellant submits that they supplied one Induction Furnace of 4 M.T to M/s SPS Metal Cast and Alloys (P) Ltd., Durgapur, vide challan no.72 dated 20.11.1997 . This Furnace was actually having a capacity of 6 M.T, by oversight they paid duty of a 4 M.T induction Furnace and cleared the same on payment of appropriate duty. The Appellant contended that they have detected the mistake on 21.01.2018 and paid the differential duty along with interest and intimated the Range superintendent on 05.03.1998, before issuance of the SCN. The department has alleged that the Appellant had abetted the evasion of central excise duty by M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... superintendent on 05.03.1998, before issuance of the SCN. The allegation of the department is that the appellant has mis-declared the induction furnace of higher capacity as lower capacity and sold the same to M/s. SPS Metal Cast and Alloys (P) Ltd. in order to enable them to pay lesser amount of duty under the compound levy system. The appellants submits that since the matter was regularized by them by payment of differential duty and it was sheer case of inadvertence that instead of sending induction furnace of 4 M.T. capacity, 6 M.T. capacity of induction furnaces supplied first and then 4 M.T. capacity furnace was supplied instead of 6 M.T. furnace supplied later. It has to be accepted as a case of sheer inadvertence. Regarding the all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e upon them as they are body corporate and out of the purview of Rule 209A ibid as held by the Tribunal in the following decisions:- a. 1996 (84) ELT 229 b. 2004 (164) ELT 339 c. 2007 (214) ELT 386 9. We observe that there is merit in the contention of the Appellant. Penalty under Rule 209A, which is akin to Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable only on an individual and not on a Firm, as held by the Tribunal, Kolkata in the case of Woodmen Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna, reported in 2004 (164) ELT 339, the relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: "9. Coming to the appeal of the other appellants viz. the buyer of the goods (M/s. Kitply Industries Ltd.) when the allegations against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far as imposition of penalty is concerned, I find that the statements of Raghuvir Singh of Pioneer Steel Re-rolling Mills and Driver Mohd. Ikram have to be taken to be voluntary and there have been no retraction of their statements. They have not probabilised that there was any coercion or threat. In view of this, I hold that they are liable to penalty and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- cannot be considered as excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. So far as redemption fine of [Rs.] 8,000 on the truck is concerned, the truck was admittedly used for clandestine removal of the goods and therefore, truck is liable to confiscation. However, the redemption fine on the truck is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand). In the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
