9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons in justifying the demand as well as imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the Appellant Company. Hence, the same do not call for interference - from the evidences as recorded and analysed in the impugned order, the role of the Director has not been specifically discussed and brought out the fact that non-payment of duty was at his instance. In these circumstances, the personal penalty on the Director is unwarranted and accordingly set aside. As far as Revenue's Appeal is concerned of reduction of penalty to 25%, the issue is no more res-integra and settled by the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise,Surat-I Vs. Krishnaram Dyeing & Finishing Works [2013 (8) TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- on the Director under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected their appeal for non compliance with the pre-deposit order under Sec.35F of CEA,1944. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred appeals before this Tribunal and by order dated 08.04.2008, after directing pre-deposit, the matter was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merit. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), in turn, remanded the matter to the Additional Commissioner for requantification of the demand. In de-novo adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty imposed. The appellant thereafter approached the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was no malafide intention to evade payment of duty as all the sales during the relevant period have been duly recorded in their books of account and no clearance was alleged to have been clandestinely made without maintenance of records. It is his further contention that penalty on the Director was confirmed without specifying his active role for non payment of central excise duty on the clearances made during the said period. Therefore, no penalty is imposable on the Director. 4. Per contra, Ld. AR for the Revenue submitted that the appellant during the period 2001 to 2003-2004 classifying their goods as Agricultural machineries, which were used for separating cotton fibres from the seeds, that is for non-agricultural purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was reduced to 32,07,982/- and later drastically reduced by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to ₹ 3,92,051/-. The Revenue has not challenged the reduction in duty. I find that the allegation against the appellant was that they have removed during the relevant period 2001 to 2004, Ginning Machineries at NIL rate of duty claiming its use in agricultural purpose, whereas its use was other wise and hence the same was held to be dutiable and duty initially not paid was confirmed. However, considering that the major portion of the sales turnover is attributable to trading activity, hence, after deducting the trading sales in computing sales under SSI exemption Notification no.08/2003 and extending cum-duty-price benefit, the liability got re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
