9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re fixing redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and imposition of penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on the assessee under Rule 173Q. The order also imposed penalty on six directors under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules ranging from an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs on one person (V.K. Patil) and Rs. 5 lakhs each on other directors. The plant and machinery was also ordered to be confiscated on a redemption fine of Rs. 7 lakhs. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of automobile components namely radiator assembly, radiator core, gaskets etc. of various shapes, size and varieties. It is stated by the appellant in the grounds of appeal that there are 6550 varieties in the range of products manufactured by them and all the products were identified solel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee and directors. 3. Shri Gunasekaran advocate appeared for all the appellants and Shri Pardeshi, DR appeared for the department. 4. It may be noted that at the relevant time a joint appeal could be filed inasmuch as in the instant case assessee as well as the directors have filed the joint appeal and this has been entertained by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Universal Auto v. CCE - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 346. Ld. Counsel for the appellant argues that the approach of the Collector is wrong in law inasmuch as the penalty has been levied in a harsh way. He also stated that specific allegation has not been made in the show cause notice as to the complicity of the directors on whom penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct remains that the show cause notice does not state the complicity of various directors. When such is the situation it is incomprehensible as to how the penalties could be imposed on the individual directors. We therefore on this score set aside the penalties imposed on each of the directors. 8. As far as the penalty imposed on the assessee namely Rs. 50 lakhs is concerned we have to state that technically and legally speaking penalty could be imposed under Rule 173Q of the rules on the basis of the value of the goods. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that justice would be met if we reduce the amount and penalty to Rs. 8,50,000/- from Rs. 50 lakhs. With this above modification, appeal stands disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
