9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 is mandatory and equal to the duty demanded or the authority has discretion to impose lesser penalty?" 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Aravali India Ltd., formerly known as Aravali Pipes Ltd., 5 Km. Stone, Hissar Road, Hansi (hereinafter referred to as the 'party' or M/s. AIL') are engaged in the manufacture of PVC Pipes falling under chapter heading No. 39 of the CETA, 1985 and are also availing Modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of final products. 3. On 9-1-1999 based on intelligence the Central Excise Officers of Hqrs. Anti-Evasion Branch, Gurgaon visited the factory of M/s. Aravali India Ltd. for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 86,87,465/- on M/s. S.K. & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon under Rule 173Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (v) I impose a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lacs only) on Sh. Vinod Kumar Bansal, Director-cum-Chairman of M/s. Aravali India Ltd. Hansi under Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944; (vi) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rs. Ten Lacs only) on Sh. S.K. Gupta, Director of M/s. S.K.& Co. Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon under Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944; (vii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs only) on Sh. Anil Kumar Goyal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al passed in E/2031/04 has been admitted and is pending before this Court on a question of law similar to the proposed questions of law as in this appeal. The question proposed to be raised by the Revenue does not arise in the case of the respondent/assessee upon whom penalty was imposed under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Even otherwise, the Tribunal has given a finding of fact that the investigation has not brought out any evidence of mens rea against the role played by the respondent in his individual capacity. Neither any finding has been recorded against the respondent/assessee of any fraud, willful misstatement, suppression of fact and collusion to evade the tax. Thus there was no mens rea present in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
