9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 11,30,569/- with interest before issue of show cause notice as soon as the investigation was taken up. They also paid 25% of the duty towards penalty before issue of show cause notice. However, show cause notice was issued proposing to impose penalty equal to duty besides confirming the amounts already paid and adjusting them towards duty liability and interest. Penalty was also proposed on the present appellant, the Director of the company. While the proceedings against M/s. Bodal Chemicals Ltd. were considered as concluded by applying the provisions of Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 which provide that if duty, interest and penalty to the extent of 25% of duty is paid, no show cause notice will be issued, proceedings initiate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty on the Director under Section 11A(2) has already attained finality by the decision of the original adjudicating authority. 3. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that the submission of the learned DR that the issue that no penalty can be imposed on the director because the proceedings have to be deemed to have been concluded against all the notices as per the provisions of Section 11A(2) is not correct. In para 20 of the Order-in-Original the submissions of Shri Rameshbhai P. Patel have been summarized which is reproduced below: Shri Rameshbhai P. Patel, Director of M/s. Bodal Chemicals Ltd. has submitted written reply dated 2.3.2009 wherein he has submitted that M/s. Bodal has already paid e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shbhai P. Patel also. Thereafter he has gone on to discuss the statement of Shri Dilipbhai M. Patel of M/s. Swastik Colour Chem, the statement of Shri Rameshbhai P. Patel and comes to the conclusion that there was clandestine removal with the knowledge of Shri Rameshbhai P. Patel. He also observes that the judgment cited by Shri Rameshbhai P. Patel in his reply are not relevant since it is an admitted case of central excise duty evasion. Further, in the conclusion arrived in para 31 also, the observations relate to the offence committed by Shri Rameshbhai P. Patel and there is no discussion that provisions of Section 11A(2) stand provide for dropping of proceedings against Shri Rameshbhai P. Patel when payments have been made by M/s. Bodal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
