9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with the contents of the panchnama and clarified that the quantity stand cleared without issuing the invoices. These facts sufficiently clarify that present two appellants were aware of the clandestine activities of the company in which case penalties imposed upon them is called for. As such, I find no justification for setting aside the penalties upon the present appellants - Decided against the appellants. - Appeal No. 628 & 633 of 2006 -SM - ORDER NO . FO/ 51964-51965 /2014-SM(Br) - Dated:- 25-4-2014 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. For the Appellant : Shri Jitin Singhal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M S Negi, AR JUDGEMENT Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nke Bihari Processors P Ltd. did not deposit the directed amount their appeal was dismissed under the provisions of section 35F of Central Excise Act. The order of Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal of Banke Bihari Processors P Ltd. was appealed against before the Tribunal who remanded the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the matter on merits subject to deposit of a part amount. Inasmuch as M/s. Banke Bihari Processors P Ltd. did not again deposited the directed amount their appeal was once again dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals) for non compliance. The matter stands rest at that point in so far as the same relates to M/s. Banke Bihari Processors. 5. While dealing with the separate appeal of present appellant, Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the statement of the Directors. He further draws my attention to Hon ble High Court decision in the case of Hansa Gosalia vs. CCE, Thane II [2013 (289) ELT 266 (Bom)] laying down that a separate penalty can be imposed upon the Director of the Company when the Directors were aware of the developments in the company. 8. After carefully considering the submissions made by both the sides, I agree with the legal proposition that there is no debar for imposition of separate penalties on the Directors, subject to the prejudice finding of their role in the clandestine activities of the company. In the present case when incriminating documents were recovered and seized under the cover of panchnama Shri Gajjadhar Jhanwar in his statement agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
