2016 (1) TMI 269

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y limitation, cannot be accepted. So, the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are justified. We allow an option to the assessee company to pay penalty 25% of the duty alongwith entire amount of duty and interest within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. The penalty on the Director, Shri Sachin Modi, is reduced to ₹ 15,000.00. The penalty imposed on Shri Parimal Naik, Factory manager is set-aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal Nos. E/258-260/2008, Appeal No. E/219/2008 - - - Dated:- 22-9-2015 - P K Das, Member (J) And P M Saleem, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri Anand Nainawati, Adv For the Respondent : Sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 00,000.00 and penalty on the factory manager was reduced 6,000.00. The assessee and its Director and the Factory manager filed appeals before the Tribunal. Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal against the assessee company, but, in grounds of appeal, it is pleaded that the penalty of the Factory manager cannot be less than ₹ 10,000.00 under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, We find that the main contention of the Learned Advocate for the assessee is that the entire demand of duty is barred by limitation. The case relates to interpretation of the exemption notification, and therefore, extended period of limitation can not be invoked. He fairly submits that they h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The appellant had not disclosed this fact with the Department. The representative of the assessee company admitted in their statements before the investigating officers. The contention of the Learned Advocate is that the demand is barred by limitation, cannot be accepted. So, the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are justified. 7. The imposition of penalty on the Director, it has been accepted by him that they had not disclosed their Bangalore unit and the imposition of penalty on the Director is justified. However, the quantum of penalty is excessive. Regarding the imposition of penalty on the Factory manager, we find that the Factory manager is an employee of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X