9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arty, towards such demand. This demand of duty has been sustained by the lower appellate authority, and this part of the order of the lower appellate authority is not under challenge in the appeal of M/s. A.P.S. Cottons. The original authority had also appropriated an amount of Rs. 11,503/- already deposited by the party, towards redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the non-duty-paid cotton yarn seized from them. M/s. A.P.S. Cottons have challenged this fine. The original authority had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on M/s. A.P.S. Cottons under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and a separate penalty of equal amount on its proprietor Shri P. Neerthilingam under Rule 26 of the said Rules. Appropriation was also made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of Rs. 31,503/- for securing release of the goods. The goods were accordingly released to them, This was followed by a show-cause notice, which proposed appropriation of the amount of Rs. 19,321/- towards duty of excise on the cotton yarn and also proposed confiscation of the goods and penalties on all the noticees. It was this show cause notice which was adjudicated upon by the original authority as already indicated. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the seized cotton yarn (valued by the department at Rs. 2,10,018/-) was overvalued and therefore the redemption fine of Rs. 11,503/- imposed on M/s. A.P.S. Cottons in lieu of confiscation of the said yarn is on the higher side. On this aspect, it is submitted by ld. DR that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst this penalty. This being so, the penalty on M/s. A.P.S. Cottons under Rule 25 of the said Rules should be vacated as it is settled law that there can be no separate penalties on a proprietary concern and its proprietor for the same offence. The offence of having physically dealt with the non-duty-paid cotton yarn is not disputed by M/s. A.P.S. Cottons. Hence a penalty on them or their proprietor is justifiable. While upholding the penalty imposed on the proprietor who has not chosen to appeal against it, I vacate the penalty imposed on M/s. A.P.S. Cottons. But the redemption fine being only 5% of the value of the goods is reasonable and requires no modification. In the result, Appeal No. E/1177/04 stands partly allowed. 5. As right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bid. The only question which remains to be considered is whether the quantum of penalty imposed on him requires to be interfered with. It has been submitted by ld. Counsel that the appellant has only a meagre salary of Rs. 2,500/- from M/s. N.A. Pappuraja Sons Ginning Factory. This submission is not supported by anything contained in the relevant appeal memo, wherein the grievance is only that the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- is high, heavy, harsh and far excessive . Nevertheless, I find that the lower authorities imposed equal penalties on the proprietor of M/s. A.P.S. Cottons, who claimed ownership of the offending goods; and Shri V.P. Balamurugan who provided temporary storage facility for the goods. The facts and circumstances of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
