9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 734 - AT - Central ExciseExcise duty evasion - Whether penalty should be imposed on the Director of the company under provisions of Section 11AC and Rule 25 or 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Revenue is of the view that since the appellant who was the Director of the assessee-company was involved in the clandestine activities of the said assessee - Held that - as per the provisions of the first proviso to Section 11A(2) when a case is against an assessee is settled under Section 11A(1A), no further proceedings is maintainable against any other person to whom notice is issued under Section 11A(1). I find that the provisions in the said proviso is very clear and decisions relied upon by Revenue are not with reference to a situation where payments as envisaged under the provisions of Section 11A(1A) was made - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on the Director of the company under Section 11AC and Rule 25 or 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Analysis: The judgment deals with the issue of whether a penalty should be imposed on the Director of a company for excise duty evasion. The company in question settled the issue by paying duty, interest, and 25% of the duty evaded as penalty under Section 11(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue contended that the Director should also be penalized under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to their involvement in the clandestine activities of the company. The Revenue cited various case laws to support their argument, including Gokul Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2009 (238) E.L.T. 381 and others. The respondent's counsel argued that as per the first proviso to Section 11A(2), when a case against an assessee is settled under Section 11A(1A), no further proceedings can be maintained against any other person to whom notice is issued under Section 11A(1). The Tribunal found the proviso to be clear and noted that the decisions relied upon by the Revenue did not apply to a situation where payments were made as per the provisions of Section 11A(1A). Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, indicating that there was no merit in the Revenue's argument. The judgment was pronounced in court by Shri Mathew John, J.
|
