9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the shape of statement of various persons which reflect upon the role played by the Director. We also agree with the ld. A.R. for Revenue that financial status of the present applicant has not been fully & correctly revealed by him. The same is only as regards the present scenario and there is nothing to show about his earning as the Director of the company - Conditional stay granted. - Appeal No. 2665 of 2008 - Stay Order No.55564/2013 - Dated:- 15-1-2013 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa and Shri Sahab Singh, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhatia, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri R.K. Verma, A.R. ORDER Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: After hearing both sides we find that vide his impugned order the Commissioner confirmed the du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tement of buyers of the goods cleared without payment of duty. For imposition of penalty upon the present applicant the adjudicating authority has relied upon inculpatory statement of the appellant who was looking after day to day work of the party. The said statement was further corroborated by the statement of other two employees of the company. 4. The contention of the ld. Advocate is that statement of the appellant Director was subsequently retracted by him. He submits that reliance has been placed on the statement of other persons who were not offered for cross-examination. Ld. Advocate also submits that factory has since been closed and sold and the director is working as employee drawing salary of Rs.4000/- per month. As such he pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be made and director should not be allowed to escape without depositing anything towards penalty. 6. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides we prima facie agrees with the contention of the Revenue. The company manufacturing final product and evading duty on the finding of clandestine removal has already been sold. The appellants have not made out a prima facie case so as to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit. Though we agree that recovery is required to be made against the company and the said fact cannot be made the basis for deciding the quantum of penalty on the present Director but we find that the adjudicating authority has discussed and has taken into consideration ample evidence for imposing penalty. As s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
