TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lector of Central Excise, Rajkot dated 28-1-1993 vide which penalty of 4 lakhs each was imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules on the appellants. 2.Brief facts of the case are that appellants Smt. Purnima K. Sharma and Smt. Bindu S. Mehta constituted a partnership firm. M/s. Aum Cosmetics and Shri Sandeep J. Mehta was Attorney of M/s. Aum Cosmetics. M/s. Aum Cosmetics were engaged i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that even no enquiries were made from these appellants. He submits that as both the appellants have no knowledge of the clearances of the goods without payment of duty. Hence, they cannot be held liable under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. For this, he relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok India Engineering Works v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, reported in 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loyees. Total amount mentioned in the invoices were recovered from the customers and copies of RT 12 Returns were also signed by him and that all the clearances shown to their customers were not recorded in their RT-12 Returns. He, therefore, submits that the appeal be dismissed. 6.Heard both sides. 7.The contention of the appellants Smt. Bindu S. Mehta and Smt. Purnima K. Sharma is that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Smt. Purnima K. Sharma are not sustainable. 8.In respect of Shri Sandeep J. Mehta, there is evidence on record by way of his admission that he was preparing the satutory record and was not showing the actual clearances in the statutory records. Therefore, he was knowingly clearing the goods to the customers and collecting excise duty which was not deposited with the Revenue Department. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
