9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ooking after the day to day working of the factory and they could not bring out any knowledge on the part of the appellant in the shortage found in the factory. In these circumstances Commissioner(Appeals)'s order is not sustainable in law as far as the penalty imposed against the appellant under Rule 26 is concerned. Thereforethe same is set aside and the appeal is allowed. - Ex.Ap.438/12 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs.4,99,068/- against M/s.Apollo Machines Pvt.Ltd. and imposed a penalty of Rs.4,00,000/- against the appellant. The appellant challenged the order before ld.Commissioner(Appeals), who reduced the penalty to Rs.1,00,000/-. Still aggrieved by the order-in-appeal, the appellant are in appeal. 4. The contention of the applicant is that penalty has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd thus it is indirectly in his knowledge. 6. Undisputedly the main appellant has not filed the appeal therefore that is not the subject matter of this case. Penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- has been upheld by the ld.Commissioner(Appeal) in this case under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in this case. The Rule 26 is reproduced hereunder for reference of convenience:- RULE 26. Penalty for certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... like claiming of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or refund, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater.] 7. From the above, it follows that there has to be knowledge for imposing penalty under Rule 26. Shri Ashok Jain in his statement stated that the appellant is looking after the finance and legal affai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
