2017 (1) TMI 225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. The fact of the case is that by Order-in-Original a demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,55,799/- was confirmed against M/s. Vir Alloys & Steel Co. Pvt Ltd, Ahmednagar, the demand of interest and equal amount of penalty with option to pay within the one month from the order for reduction of penalty under Section 11AC to 25%. In addition to said confirmation, a penalty of Rs. 1,55,799/- was also imposed upon the appellant under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The company, M/s. Vir Alloys & Steel Co. Pvt Ltd, Ahmednagar admitting charges of clandestine removal, discharged/paid excise duty of Rs. 1,55,799/- + interest+ 25% penalty under Section 11AC within one month from the date of receipt of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. Pradyumna Steel Ltd[1996(82) ELT 441(S.C.) ] and this Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. Pune Vs. Lanjekar Sales Corporation[2007(5) S.T.R.272 (Tri. Mum)]. He also placed reliance on Shreeji Metal Works versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-II [2008 (227) E.L.T. 549 (Tri. - Mumbai)] 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 6. I find that as per undisputed facts of the case the clandestine removal made by the company, M/s. Vir Alloys & Steel Co. Pvt Ltd, Ahmednagar has been established. The appellant being the Chief Executive Officer of the company was solely responsible for the act of clandestine removal by the compa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ces appellant was liable for penalty, however I find that against total duty of Rs. 1,55,799/- the equal amount of penalty was imposed upon the appellant as personal penalty. The appellant is otherwise liable for penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore penalty of Section 11AC is not imposable on the appellant but he is liable for penalty under Rule 26. As per this position, I am of the view that penalty of equal amount of duty i.e. Rs. 1,55,799 is not justifiable therefore it requires reduction. I therefore reduce the penalty from Rs. 1,55,799 to Rs. 38,950/-. The impugned order is modified to this extent. Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. (Order pronounced in court on 16/06/16)
Case laws, Decision .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X