9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal and if not given, the same can be extended by the appellate authorities – Thus the option of 25% reduced penalty available under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act is extended to the appellant if the same is paid within one month from the receipt of this order, as per the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. Imposition of penalty upon the second appellant – Reduction of Penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise rules, 2002 - Held that:- He was well aware of the day to day activities of the main appellant and was also aware of the shortages - Being authorized signatory, he should have explained the shortages satisfactorily which have been accepted by the main appellant - but he could not do so, penalty is imposable upon him - the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d goods are in coil form and thus cannot be copper rods but copper bars which are duly accounted for in the RG-1 register under copper bars. He admitted that there was only shortage of 2480 kgs of copper bars instead of 5985 kgs (5985-3505=2480 kgs) and voluntarily paid Rs.1,59,722/- as duty leviable on 2480 kgs of copper bars, found short, from PLA register on 20.11.2006. Two separate show cause notices were issued for excess goods detected and goods found short against which appellant filed appeals with Commissioner (Appeals) against separate orders. In the present appeals, the penalty of Rs.50,000/- imposed upon Shri Rikab V. Mehta, Partner of the main appellant was set aside and only the remaining two persons are up against the OIA dt.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings and that no appeal is filed against CESTAT s order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. OIO No.76/AC/NDMN/DEM/09-10, dt.31.03.2010 confirmed demand of Rs.3,83,863/- and imposed an equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As per Order No.A/1019-1021/WZB/AHD/2010, dt.23.07.2010 passed by this very Bench in the proceedings arisen out of the Panchnama dt.15/16.11.2006, it was held that there was no excess of 3505 kgs of copper rods and the same quantity was actually quantity of bars manufactured by the main appellant. Accordingly, if that quantity taken as excess is set off against the shortages, the net shortage comes to only 2480 kgs on which duty liability accepted by the main appellant come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
