2022 (8) TMI 1247 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of penalty u/r 26 of CER - manipulation of costing and the clandestine removal of the goods from the Job Worker s Factory premises - HELD THAT - From the statement of the appellant with reference to the case against the company, there is a clear admission that the appellant have manipulated the cost of the product and the goods were clandestinely removed from the premises of the Job Worker. In these appeals, the appellant s plea is that he was working as Import/Export Manager and not dealt with the transaction made with the Job Worker. The appellant is the sole Authorised Signatory for the company and he has given statements with reference to the offence committed by the company. Therefore, his submission that he was not involved in the activity of Job Work has no support. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has already taken a lenient view and substantially reduced the penalty from Rs.50000/- and Rs.20,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.8,000/- respectively. The role of the appellant is clearly established therefore, no further relief can be extended to the appellant. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty imposed under Rule 26 for duty evasion by the employer company of the appellant.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging a common impugned Order-In-Appeal that upheld penalties of Rs.20,000 and Rs.8,000 respectively, imposed under Rule 26 due to duty evasion by the employer company of the appellant. The appellant did not appear during the proceedings. The Authorized Representative for the revenue reiterated that the penalties were rightly imposed as the appellant was directly involved in manipulating costing and clandestine removal of goods. The appellant's admission of the offense and involvement in the company's activities were highlighted. The Authorized Representative emphasized that the penalties were already reduced by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and no further leniency was warranted.

Upon careful consideration, the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) found that the appellant, as the sole Authorized Signatory for the company, had admitted to manipulating product costs and involvement in clandestine activities. The appellant's claim of being an Import/Export Manager and not involved in Job Worker transactions was dismissed as unsupported by the records. The judgment noted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had taken a lenient view, as evidenced by the reduction of penalties from Rs.50,000 and Rs.20,000 to Rs.20,000 and Rs.8,000 respectively. The appellant's minimal role during the duty evasion period was acknowledged, leading to the reduction in penalties. The judgment affirmed the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld the impugned orders, dismissing the appeals.