9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as by the CESTAT, Kolkata for imposing penalty of ₹ 2 Lakh upon each of the appellants. We see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the CESTAT, Kolkata. So far as penalty of ₹ 35 Lakhs upon the company is concerned, the matter has already been remanded by the CESTAT, Kolkata. The amount of ₹ 2 Lakh per head of penalty is absolutely just and proper, looking to the nature of clandestine removal of the goods without payment of the duty. There is no substance in these Tax Appeals and, hence, the same are, hereby, dismissed. - Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2008 With Tax Appeal No. 2 of 2008 With Tax Appeal No. 3 of 2008 With Tax Appeal No. 4 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 10-5-2016 - MR. D. N. PATEL AND MR. ANANDA SE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 54 10.01.1991 4 55 10.01.1991 5 56 10.01.1991 6 57 11.01.1991 7 58 16.02.1991 So far as other fifteen duplicate gate passes are concerned, they were also recovered during the search carried out of the premises of the appellant by the central excise officer on 10thth May, 1994. 2.For the ready reference, paragraphs 10.5 and 10.6 of the order passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata in Excise Appeal Nos. EDM3640 of 2006 dated 30thth May, 2007 read as under: 10.5. Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred by the directors were rejected by the CESTAT, Kolkata and, hence, they have also preferred Tax Appeal Nos. 2 of 2008, 3 of 2008 and 4 of 2008. So far as Mr. Kali Kant Jha is concerned, he has expired and, therefore, he has not preferred any Tax Appeal in this Court against the order of CESTAT, Kolkata. The aforesaid all four persons are proprietors and Mr. Kali Kant Jha was a manager. 3.Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that no substantial question of law is involved in this Tax Appeal. The argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is based upon facts. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the goods, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel for the appellant that they have removed semi-finished goods which are not excisable, is not accepted by this Court. The so-called aluminium wire is a raw material for another manufacturing which is also going to do value addition upon the aluminium wire. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that under Rule 56-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the excise duty is not leviable upon semi-finished goods. This contention is also not accepted by this Court, looking to the fact of the present case. In fact, as per Rule 56-B of the Central Excise Rules, there is need of the order to be passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. No such order has been placed on record by the appellant to get the benefit of Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order accordingly. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata for clandestine removal of the goods without payment of the duty, as per paragraph nos. 10.5 and 10.6 of the order passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata penalty has been imposed upon all the aforesaid three appellants i.e. ₹ 2 Lakh per appellant. Being aggrieved by the order of penalty passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi in his Order-in-Original dated 17th October, 2005 and looking to the consistent finding of the fact by the CESTAT, Kolkata also, the present appeals have been preferred by the directors. 7. We have heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
