TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any appellant No. 1. He has also imposed separate penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules on its Director appellant No 2. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that duty has been wrongly con- firmed against the appellants as part of the goods i.e. 4 out of 11 Scanners allegedly removed by the company appellant No. 1 for the purpose of demonstration after following the due procedure, were brought back to the factory and this aspect has been wrongly ignored by the Commissioner. He has also contended that goods allegedly cleared in the DTA by the appellants were manufactured from the indigenous material and not imported and as such, the duty under the Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved back in their factory. Rather they were disposed of by them in D.T.A. Similarly, the goods imported/ procured duty free and sent for sub-contracting, repair, testing were also disposed of by them in contravention of the Exim Policy and the above said exemption notifications. All these allegations were very candidly admitted by appellant No. 2 in a statement recorded on 17-12-93. Therefore, the plea of the appellants that 4 out of 11 scanners were received back in the factory had been rightly rejected by the adjudicating authority. 4.2 We also find that the appellants even did not file reply to the show cause notice in spite of ample opportunity afforded to them. The memo sent to them by registered post for filing reply was received b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct and Rs. 50,000/- under the Customs Act. 7. But the imposition of penalty against appellant No. 2 in our view, is not sustainable for want of evidence to prove of having in any manner, direct hand in the removal of the goods from the factory premises for demonstration, repair, etc. purposes. The day to day affairs of the company were looked after by Shri Narinder Randhawa, Manager Export and Import under whose nose, the goods were manufactured and disposed of in the DTA as admitted by him. Therefore, penalty against appellant No. 2 is set aside in toto. 8. Consequently, the impugned order regarding confirmation of duty under the Customs and Central Excise Act against the company appellant No. 1 is upheld while in respect of penalty u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
