9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Rules on the Company, appellant no. 1 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the Manager, appellant no. 2. The Commissioner has also confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 88,140/- separately on the company, appellant no. 1. 2. The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under : 3. The company, appellant no. 1 was engaged in the manufacture of motor cycle and parts thereof. Appellant no. 2, was a manager of the company at the relevant time. On the visiting of the factory premises by the Officers of Central Excise Preventive Branch it revealed that the company was procuring the components for manufacture of the final product i.e. motor cycle by two ways, one by import and the other by local purchase. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so ordered them to pay interest amounting to Rs. 2,99,823/-. The Commissioner also imposed penalty of equal amount of Rs. 24,45,187/- under Rules 52A, 53, 57F, 173G and 173F of the Rules and further confirmed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Rules on the company appellant no. 1. On appellant no. 2 the Commissioner has imposed of Rs. 20,000/-. 4. The learned Counsel has not disputed or questioned the validity of the impugned order on merits before us. He has fairly conceded that the duty demand of Rs. 24,45,187/- and of Rs. 88,410 had been rightly confirmed on appellant no. 1 by the Commissioner. 5. What has been contested before us by the Counsel is imposition of penalty of the equal of duty of Rs. 2,45,187/- under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of the case, the penalty amounts of Rs. 24,45,187/- is reduced to Rs. 15 lacs (Rupees fifteen lacs only). However, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Rules imposed by Commissioner cannot be legally sustained once the company, appellant no. 1 had been burdened with the penalty under Rules 52A, 53, 57F, 173G and 173F of the Rules. Therefore, that penalty is accordingly set aside. 9. Regarding the penalty on appellant no. 2, the learned Counsel has contended that he was only an employee of the company at the relevant time and is still also employee and he did not have much say in the affairs of the company and deserves to be let off by setting aside the penalty amount. But, we have gone through the impugned order an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
