2019 (7) TMI 489 - AT - Central Excise

Imposition of penalty - demand itself has been set aside vide PHIL ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED, AIRAN STEEL POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, SHRI NK BHOJANI, SHRI MANOJ SHARMA, ARORA (CG) ENERGY AND STEEL P LTD, RADHA MADHAV INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, KALINDI ISPAT PVT LTD, MANGAL SPONGE STEEL PVT LTD, SHRI RUPESH AGRAWAL, SATYA POWER ISPAT LTD, SHRI ANAND SINGHANIA, SHRI AKHILESH SINGHANIA VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -RAIPUR 2018 (11) TMI 912 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - HELD THAT - There is no question of imposition of penalty on the present appellant. It stands already set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order in Original No.28.12.2017
- Imposition of penalty on the Appellant as the Authorised Signatory of a company
- Setting aside of demand and penalty based on lack of evidence

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against Order in Original No.28.12.2017, which was a Common Order-in-Original involving multiple parties, including Radha Madhav Industries Pvt. Ltd., Satya Power & Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Kalindi Ispat Privat Limited, Phil Ispat Privat Ltd., and Airan Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. Each party was referred to by a specific name in the order, with corresponding Show Cause Notice (SCN) numbers and dates, and Adjudication File Numbers provided for clarity.

2. The Appellant, who was also the Authorised Signatory of Satya Power & Ispat Pvt. Ltd., faced penalty imposition. However, the demand itself was set aside through a subsequent order dated 13.11.2018. The decision highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the transportation of extra iron ore by related entities, leading to the conclusion that no duty demand under the Finance Act, 1994 could be substantiated. Consequently, the penalty on all manufacturing units and the individual case was deemed unsustainable, resulting in the allowance of the Appeals on those grounds.

3. The judgment emphasized that since the duty demand was not sustainable due to insufficient evidence, the imposition of penalty on the present Appellant, as the Authorised Signatory, was unwarranted. The penalty was already set aside, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order entirely. As a result, the Appeal was allowed, and the penalty on the Appellant was revoked.