9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. These two appeals arise out of the same impugned order, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are manufacturer of co-extruded multilayer films and flexible packing materials. The appellant-company was using plastic granule as input for the manufacture of their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the Managing Director of the company. 3. Arguing the case for the appellants Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Counsel submits that the appellants had no intention to evade payment of duty. He submits that it was a clerical error of the employee who was maintaining the central excise records. He submits that as soon as the mistake was pointed out the appellant reversed the entire amount of Modvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not too high on the company. Learned SDR also submits that Managing Director is answerable to the company as he would be looking after day to day working in company and cannot absolve himself of the responsibility. He, therefore, submits that penalty has rightly been imposed on the Managing Director. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made before us by both the sides we note tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ety we hold that in the circumstances of the case penalty is too high, the same is reduced to Rs. 5.0 lacs (rupees five lacs) on the company. 8. In so far as imposition of penalty on Managing Director, Shri Suresh Gopichand Keswani, is concerned we note that he was not in India during the material period and was abroad, therefore, the knowledge cannot be attributed to him regarding confiscabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
