9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d A.K. Bhasin, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Ashok Kumar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The appellant herein, which is a proprietory concern, challenges the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. Penalty has been imposed for the reason that the appellant received branded goods which were liable to duty, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rival submissions. The proprietor of the appellant is Mrs. Krishna Gupta, mother of Rajiv Gupta. The fact that Rajiv Gupta has settled the matter of penalty against him under the KVS Scheme, is no ground for contending that penalty is not warranted upon the proprietory concern. The appellant does not deny the finding that M/s. Shakti Tar Udyog had received branded goods without payment of duty fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that no penalty could be imposed on the proprietor of the concern, M/s. Sunny Enterprises, since its proprietor Baljit Singh had been individually held liable to penalty. In the case of Broadway Textiles Ltd. & Others v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur reported in 1999 (35) RLT 729, the Tribunal has categorically held that there is no finding in the adjudication order about the role of each ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
