9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a normal course of transactions, a commercial business risk being taken by the Company at Hyderabad. Nothing else could be read in that act. The mandatory penalty, as arrived at, based on facts and on the reasons in the impugned order is therefore not upheld. As regards the penalty on the appellants under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, it is found that all the inputs in these proceedings are imported goods, therefore not being excisable goods, they are not liable for confiscation under the Central Excise Act, nor have they being found so. Therefore no goods are found to be liable for confiscation. Hence penalties under Rule 209A are not called for and cannot be upheld. The plea of limitation in this case is also upheld since in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44; (iv) Imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each on Shri B. Nagi Reddy, Director - Operations and Shri. K. Rami Reddy, General Manager, under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (b) During the period April, 1995 to August, 1999, the Company imported consignments of chemicals for use as raw materials in the manufacture of the final product. Imports were made through Chennai Air and Sea Customs. To clear the same, after due payment of duties, M/s. Farport International, Madras was appointed as the Clearing agent. The appellant-company, after receipt of due intimation from the clearing agent, used to advise the said clearing agent either to clear the goods or to warehouse the same. They used to send the duty amounts for the goods to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after accepting that the proceedings under the Customs Excise Act for disallowing the credit and the recovery of duty under Customs Act initiated by Chennai Customs, are interrelated, has, however, passed the impugned order rejecting the contention of the appellants and holding that the proceedings are interdependent to arrive at a conclusion. Ordered the reversals of credit taken demands and penalties. (e) Hence these appeals. 3. After hearing both sides and considering the issues, it is found - (a) The present proceedings initiated under the Central Excise Act, 1944 to deny the Modvat credit and impose penalties would depend solely on the outcome of the proceedings initiated by the Customs Authorities at Chennai. If, in the Customs case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en found, to implicate the Company and its Directors Shri Rami Reddy (General Manager) one of the appellants herein, to be part of the design of the Clearing House Agent in removing the goods in an unauthorised manner and supplying the same to the appellants. The penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) cannot be imposed on the Company. (c) The finding of the Commissioner that the assessee-company s endeavour is deliberate evasion of duty by taking Modvat credit in view of the findings arrived at by this Bench after considering the facts in certain cases cannot be upheld. (d) The mandatory penalty as arrived at under Rule 57-I(4) also cannot be upheld, in the facts of this case, when it is found that there was no knowledge on part of the appellants h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
