9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal is that no provision, section or rule of law under which the penalty has been imposed upon the Director, has been specified in the impugned order of the Joint Commissioner. These observations of the Tribunal overlook the fact that in the body of the Order in-Original, and more specifically in paragraph 23 thereof, the Adjudicating Authority has in fact, while considering the case against the respondent, held that the respondent is liable to penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the circumstances, merely because there is no mention of Rule 26 in the operative part of the order, it cannot be understood to mean that the adjudicating authority has not specified the provisions under which the penalty has been imposed u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rately under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (the Rules). The show cause notice culminated into an Order in-Original dated 28-12-2005, whereby a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- came to be imposed on the respondent. The respondent carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 30-11-2006, dismissed the appeal. The preferred second appeal before the Tribunal, who found that there was no justifiable reason to impose separate penalty upon the Director especially when no provisions/section/rule of law under which penalties had been imposed upon the Director stood specified in the impugned order of the Joint Commissioner and accordingly set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent [2009 (234) E.L.T. 149 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the evasion of duty was masterminded and actively executed by the respondent. 6. The appellate authority has concurred with the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority and has found that the respondent was actively involved in the activities of clandestine removals and was accordingly of the view that the penalty imposed on the Director was justified, and upheld the same. 7. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has not recorded any findings as regards the involvement of the respondent in the clandestine removal. Nothing has been discussed as to why the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) are not justified and as to why the Tribunal is required to take a different view. The Tribunal has merely recorded that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
