9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification of the previous gate passbook of the unit it was noticed that the original and duplicate copy of GP.1 No. 21 was despatched and the triplicate copy of the gate pass was left blank. The officers visited M/s. Lakme Ltd. and resumed gate pass 1 No. 21, dated 10-12-1990. Statement of the appellant Ramanlal L. Jain, who is the Managing Director of the Unit was recorded wherein he inter alia stated that he was looking after the factory management and overall business of the unit. They had supplied the entire production to M/s. Lakme Ltd. He stated that Shri S.S. Dabi was looking after the total activities of cosmetic section including Production, Despatch and excise formalities. He also admitted that the R.T. 12 return for the month of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty of Rs. 25,000/-on other appellant Shri Ramanlal Jain, who is the Managing Director under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules for having been concerned with the unauthorised removal of the goods as above. 2. The ld. Counsel Shri M.H. Patil for the appellant submitted that the appellants have already deposited the duty involved and in the present appeals they would pray only for setting aside the penalty on both these appellants. There are mitigating circumstances in this case. It was at the instance of the appellants that the officers had been asked to visit their factory for detaining cosmetic goods for recovery of some demand in connection with another case where the appellants had gone up in appeal on the denial of the exemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the veracity of the statement of Dabi. In this regard the Tribunal decision in the case Kanam Foam Industries v. Collector of Central Excise - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 368 (Tribunal) was cited to argue that the Solitary evidence and that too of a tainted character will not be a ground for penalty. In this case solitary evidence of Dabi s statement cannot be the ground for penalising the appellant. It was further argued that there was no case at all for imposing a penalty on the appellant Ramanlal Jain, because he was not concerned with day to day operations relating to Central Excise clearance of the unit as he was based in Bombay. It was only Shri Dabi who has been authorised in all these matters. In such circumstances merely on the basis of Dabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this gate pass appears to have been issued Shri Dabi was not absent as seen from the disbursement acquaintance role, and the further evidence of the R.T.12 return submitted for the month of November, 1990 on 18-12-1990 which has been signed by Shri Dabi himself. In the face of such evidence, the department perhaps should have confronted appellant with the statement of Dabi which they have failed to do, and obviously the department has not established the presence of the appellant Ramanlal Jain at the material time in the factory, and, the contention is that he was not in the factory at that time, but in Bombay. The statement of Dabi to the extent that in his absence Central Excise work was looked after by appellant Ramanlal Jain or Kalpesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
