9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l amount of penalty imposed under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC on them. While in the other stay application No. 448, appellant No. 2 has sought waiver of penalty amount of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on him under Rule 209A of the Rules. 3. The facts giving rise to both these stay applications may briefly be stated as under :- On receipt of reliable information, the officer Anti-Evasion Branch of Central Excise conducted the raid on 4-6-1997 at the factory premises of the firm appellant No. l and residential premises of appellant No. 2, who was one of the partners in the firm. During the search 19 drums of electric wires and cables valued at Rs. 5,25,939/- were detained and seized from the factory premises. In follow up action, the premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion the written submissions which he had enclosed with that letter. 5. We have gone through the written submissions and heard the SDR. 6. The main ground taken up in the written submissions by appellant No. 2 is that neither the show cause notice was served on them nor they were afforded sufficient opportunity for submitting reply to the show cause notice. They were also not personally heard. He had also mentioned in the written submissions that the Company M/s. Alok Cable Pvt. Ltd. which affected the clearnances of the goods without payment of duty was not made even party to the proceedings by issuing a show cause notice. The duty if any, was payable by that Company and not by the appellants. 7. Ld. SDR on the other hand, has reitera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants for allowing them total waiver of the duty and penalty imposed as detailed above. 9. The equity and balance of convenience also, cannot be said to be in favour of the appellants, keeping in view their conduct. They had virtually played fraud on the Government and evaded huge amount of duty by adopting illegal means. They went to the extent of collecting the excise duty from the Airport Authority of India to whom they were supplying the goods, on the strength of fake invoices. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and issue involved, we direct appellant No. 1 to make pre-deposit of Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty lakhs only) out of the total duty amount of Rs. 11,95,072/- (Sic) and to appellant No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
