9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y imposed on the Director deserves to be set aside. In view of above, the impugned Order is modified and the appellant company s appeal is partly allowed to the above extent and the appeal filed by the Director Shri Vijay Kumar Jalan is allowed. Appeals disposed off. - Appeal Nos. EA-13-14/11 - Order No. FO/A/75841-75842/2015 - Dated:- 6-11-2015 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member ( Judicial ) Shri Radha Raman, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.S.Chatterjee, Advocate for the Revenue ORDER Per Dr. D. M. Misra 1. These two Appeals are filed against Order-in-Appeal No.140-141/PAT/CEX/Appeal/2010 dated 28.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Patna. 2. Briefly stated facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tock, but it was only on the basis of eye-estimation, hence the demand is bad in law. Further he submits that department has not placed any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the goods were cleared clandestinely without payment of duty, hence the demand is unsustainable in law. Further he submits that while imposing and confirming penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the appellant company neither the adjudicating authority nor the appellate authority allowed them to avail the opportunity of payment of 25% of the penalty as prescribed under the relevant provision. Challenging the personal penalty imposed on the Director under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules,2002 he submits that it is unsustainable as the role o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty on the Director is valid. The authorities below had examined all the contentions pleaded by the Appellants that the shortages in stock of inputs/finished goods were due to non-writing of the relevant registers as their dealing assistant was sick, secondly, the stock taking was on eye-estimation basis and not on actual basis. Both the said defense pleas have been rejected by the authorities below observing that the physical stock-taking was conducted in the presence of the representative of the appellant company and no objection was raised about the process of physical stock-taking. Regarding the claim of non-completion of the relevant stock register by entering earlier days production, the authorities below had observed that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is asked to pay a duty demand with interest and 25% of penalty within 30 days from the date of adjudication of the order and in such case, he would be liable to pay only 25% of the penalty. Whenever such option had not been given, the remand had been made to the concerned authorities. And period of 30 days is being considered, if in case option is not given earlier, from the date of availing such option. 15. In the present case also, the remand had been made to the Tribunal and in the order of remand, it was also directed to consider the provision of Section 11AC and the Tribunal had had specifically noted that none of the two authorities below had availed any option to the assessee to pay duty demand with interest and penalty of 25% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
