9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al amount of penalty, and further imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakhs, Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs respectively on appellant Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The appellants have got two units. They were engaged in the manufacture of Insulated Wires and Cables. On receipt of intelligence that they were indulging in the clandestine removal of wires and cables, search was conducted on 11-9-1996 of both their units and certain incriminating documents were found which were taken into possession through Panchnama dated 11-9-1996. As a result of physical stock taking of the finished goods, some goods were found unaccounted for and the same were seized for which separate proceedings were initiated. On scrutiny of the resumed records, it revealed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on merits also the impugned order is not sustainable. 4. On the other hand, the learned JDR has only reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 5. We have heard both sides and gone through the facts on record. 6. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the same has been passed after the remand of the case by the Tribunal earlier vide order dated 1-3-2000. In that order, the Tribunal directed the Department to supply the copies of all documents to the appellants or to allow them inspection of the documents. The Commissioner thereafter complied with this direction of the Tribunal before deciding the case. The appellants were allowed to inspect the records. Even Shri Anil Kumar, Partner, admitted vide letter dated 6-6-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Railways, was corroborated by the inspection register. Shri Rajesh Dubey, authorised signatory of the appellants firm also admitted the maintenance of two parallel sets of invoices. He further admitted that they were manipulating the records in such a manner that the first and second copy of the GPIs/Invoices was showing payment of duty @ 25% adv. and the third and fourth copy was showing payment of duty @ 15% adv. and 20% adv. and that they were charging full duty @ 25% adv. from the Railways and the DGS D, but paying concessional duty @ 15% adv. and 20% adv. to the Central Excise Department. The charging of duty at full rate from the Railways and the DGS D also stood corroborated from the details furnished by both these buyers reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of personal penalty on appellant Nos. 5, M/s. Meenu Jagota, being sleeping partner and who was not concerned with the day to day affairs of the firm (Appellant No. 1) is set aside. On all other appellants i.e. Appellant Nos. 2 to 4, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty amounts are reduced. On Shri Jeevan Lal, the penalty amount is reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only), while on Shri Anil Kumar it is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), and on Shri Rajesh Dubey, it is reduced to Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). 13. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner is accordingly modified. The duty amount of Rs. 63,50,509/- is confirmed whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
