9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector is concerned, discarding plea of innocence by appellant it is submitted by Revenue that the Managing Director was involved consciously in evasion for which no reduction in penalty is permissible. The adjudicating authority appears to have presumption of conscious involvement of the Managing Director in para 61 of his order finding that there was knowledge and consent of the Managing Director to cause evasion. But his finding is not based on any cogent evidence. No doubt, pre-ponderance of probability is in favour of Revenue. But the penalty proceeding being qusi-criminal in nature, that cannot be imposed mechanically. However considering totality of facts and circumstance of the case and extent of evasion as well as human intervent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Revenue supports the adjudication on the ground of no corroborative evidence led by appellant to discard questionable modus operandi followed by it. Evaluation of evidences made by authorities below showed clandestine removal. Therefore both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5. On perusal of the order of adjudication, it appears that learned adjudicating authority has rigourously tested strength of evidence. He has tabulated the relevant evidence tested in para 53 of the order. That reveals appellant's oblique motive and intention to cause evasion. There were physical removals of the goods not supported by any evidence of payment of duty. The notebooks discovered in the cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... destinely removed goods. 10. The adjudicating authority appears to have presumption of conscious involvement of the Managing Director in para 61 of his order finding that there was knowledge and consent of the Managing Director to cause evasion. But his finding is not based on any cogent evidence. No doubt, pre-ponderance of probability is in favour of Revenue. But the penalty proceeding being qusi-criminal in nature, that cannot be imposed mechanically. However considering totality of facts and circumstance of the case and extent of evasion as well as human intervention in causing evasion, it is considered that imposition of penalty of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on the managing Director is Justified. His appeal is pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
