9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Act and on the grounds that the Commissioner has not examined the individual role as it was proven beyond doubt that he has indulged himself in systematic evasion of Central Excise duty, rendering himself liable for penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- In order to impose penalty personally, it is settled position of law that the role of the individual has to be ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T ), Bangalore, and sought to be admitted on the following suggested question of law : Whether it is appropriate for the Tribunal to set aside personal penalty assailed by Shri Rameshwarlal Rathi without appreciating the provisions as contained in Sections 9D and 14 of the Central Excise Act and on the grounds that the Commissioner has not examined the individual role as it was proven beyond do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings. Therefore, as rightly argued by the appellants relying on the case laws cited, the demand to the tune of ₹ 13,20,056/- is not supported by any reliance evidence. We vacate the demand of the said amount. On the question of imposition of penalty, the learned Tribunal found as follows : In the separate appeals filed by S/Shri Suresh Kumar Singhal, Naresh Kumar Agarwal, Vija ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, as the conditions for imposition of penalty are not simply satisfied. We, therefore, do not find any element of law involved in this matter and also do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
