9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no need to interfere with this part of the order Regarding penalty - The involvement of the Directors with knowledge and intention is clearly evident - it is seen that penalties imposed by the original authority on the directors is nominal - penalty of Rs. 8,15,375/- imposed is restored - - E/1752-1754/2006-SM(BR) - 1094-1096/2010-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 16-9-2010 - Shri M. Veeraiyan, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.K. Bhaskar, JDR, for the Appellant. Shri Saurabh Yadav, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. These three appeals are by the department against the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30-3-2006 against M/s. Sourabh Polyplast Pvt. Ltd., Shri Rajiv Agarwal, Director and Shri Mohd. Irshad, Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5 lakhs which could not be encashed. However, the respondent company paid a sum of Rs. 3,62,173/- under TR-6 challan dated 15-9-2004. 4. In pursuance of show cause notice, the original authority adjudicated the matter and ordered confiscation of 200 numbers of water storage tanks valued at Rs. 2,32,000/- but allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 58,000/-. He confirmed demand of Rs. 8,15,375/- in respect of clearances of water storage tanks during the period January 2004 to March, 2004. He adjusted the amount of Rs. 3,62,173/- paid on 15-9-2004 and also adjusted available cenvat credit of Rs. 4,53,202/-. He demanded interest under Section 11AB. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,15,375/- under Section 11AC of the Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovals are not justified. The accounts relating to production and clearance and RG 23 Part I and Part II could not be updated as the concerned employee was on long leave. Though duty was not paid during the period January, 2004 to March, 2004, in as much as the clearances were effected on invoices, it should be treated only as a case of delayed payment of duty and not as clandestine removal. Therefore, no penalty under Section 11AC, as held by the original authority, is imposable. He also submits that there was no specific finding against the Directors about knowledge or intention to evade payment of duty on their part and therefore, penalties on them are not justified. It is also submitted that the entire duty involved stands paid before is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary, 2004, the same was required to be paid by 15th March and for clearances made during March, the same required to be paid by 31st March, 2004. Thus, it is a clear case of non-maintenance of record of receipt and disposal of cenvat input, non-maintenance of records production and clearance of final products, clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty for three months. The plea that they could not maintain accounts because the accountant was on leave cannot be accepted. Further the respondent company has not filed any statutory return after the quarter ending September, 2003. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) treating this case as a case of delayed payment is highly erroneous. It is a case of non-accountal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
