9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 A in cases where the allegation of suppression of facts or fraud stands established. In the present case, we find that Shri S.K. Bansal, who is the director of the appellant-assessee, has involved himself in the evasion of Excise duty by clandestine clearance of the goods. But he might have not been aware of the manner of clandestine removal of the goods. It appears that he was not actively involved in the activities but he cannot deny his responsibility - However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty on Shri S.K. Bansal, Director, from ₹ 2 lakhs to ₹ 50,000/- which will meet the ends of justice - Appeal disposed of. - Appeal No. E/1772-1773/2009 - 56033-56034 /2016 - Dated:- 22-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e second appeal has been filed by Shri S.K. Bansal, directed against the penalty imposed on him. 2. With the above background, we have heard Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate representing both the appellants as well as Shri Amresh Jain, Ld. Departmental Representative for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel submitted that the duty demanded has been paid in full along with the interest and the same is not contested. However, he agitated against the penalties imposed on the appellant-assessee as well as the director. 4. It is seen from the records that the appellant-assessee has been registered only for the manufacture of metal containers. The duty demand has been made on the clearance of lubricating oil made by the appellant by r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these Rules. 7. In the present case, we find that Shri S.K. Bansal, who is the director of the appellant-assessee, has involved himself in the evasion of Excise duty by clandestine clearance of the goods. But he might have not been aware of the manner of clandestine removal of the goods. It appears that he was not actively involved in the activities but he cannot deny his responsibility. Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that penalty is imposable under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
