9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -, imposed a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- on M/s. G.M.I. Engineering Ltd., Calcutta and dropped penal proceedings against the Managing Director Shri Sushil Kumar Ghorawat. 2. The main allegation against the respondent M/s. G.M.I. Engineering Ltd. was two fold. Firstly, they were alleged to have removed 5 numbers Electronic Weighing Machines and 31 Numbers Gold Testing Machines and 11 Numbers Diamond Testing Machines, totally valued at Rs. 10,30,200/- from the factory to their registered office without payment of the appropriate central excise duty of Rs. 80,391/-. Secondly, they were alleged to have indulged in clandestine removal of the unaccounted Electronic Weighing Scales, totally valued at Rs. 43,16,756/-, during the financial years 1993- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equity and good conscience . It, therefore, was of the opinion that, although there was a case of confirmation of the duty, penalty should be cautionary in nature as against retributive. 2.3. Although penal proceedings initiated against Shri Sushil Kumar Ghorawat u/r 209A of the CEA, 1944, the adjudicating authority refrained from imposing any penalty on him on the ground that there was no evidence on record to show that he had any knowledge or had reason to believe that the impugned goods were liable to confiscation and as such there was no mala fide interntion to evade payment of duty. Hence, no penalty was imposed on him, However, this aspect has not been touched upon in the Review Order. 3. Shri J.M. Kennedy, learned JDR represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave examinaed the various provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder concerning imposition of penalties. In our view, the Adjudicating Officer has strained and unfettered authority to determine the quantum of penalty, of course, subject to the general rule of law that penalty imposed shall be proportionate to the gravity of offence committed. However, while quantifying the penalty, the adjudication authority shall take congnizance of the mitigating or extenuating circumstances. In the instant case, the adjudicating authority has specified such mitigating and extenuating circumstances in the order impugned and as such does not call for any interference. 5.2. As this ground of inadequacy of penalty is repeatedly in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
