9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26 is fully justified and merits no interference. Penalty on Shri Parvesh Jain, who was the Proprietor of M/s Max - Held that: - The investigation has established that during the relevant period, goods worth nearly ₹ 5.5 crores attracting duty of ₹ 91 lakhs have been found to have been cleared to M/s BDFH without payment of duty from M/s Max. Shri Parvesh Jain also in his statement has admitted that he has managed the sales without invoices. Consequently, penalty is liable to be imposed on Shri Jain under Rule 26. Even though Shri Parvesh Jain has claimed that he was only a paid employee of Shri Ashok Jain, it is on record that he has been instrumental in getting goods manufactured in the premises of M/s Max and clearance of the same without payment of duty - Shri Parvesh Jain, Proprietor of the M/s Max will be liable for levy of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. Penalties upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/178-180/2010-Ex[SM] - A/52319-52321 /2017-CU[SM] - Dated:- 14-3-2017 - Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sh. A.K. Mishra, Sh. Harish Kohli, Sh. J.P. Kaushik, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. R.K. Mishr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for each of the three units as above, which was sought to be denied through the Show Cause Notice dated 26.06.2008. In the Show Cause Notice, the department alleged that Shri Ashok Jain had got cosmetics manufactured through three dummy units, which were purchasing raw materials as well as selling final products without payment of duty in cash. Further, it was alleged that even in respect of goods, which were accounted and invoiced, the goods were shown as sold at MRP s, which were very depressed. 3. In line with the above, the Show Cause Notice demanded Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 4,81,45,644/- along with a proposal to levy interest as well as penalty of an equal amount. The duty demand as well as imposition of penalties was confirmed in the impugned order. In addition, penalties of various amounts were imposed on several persons. In respect of the three appellants, the penalties were levied as follows: 1. M/s BDFH ₹ 50 lakhs. 2. M/s Jainico Traders ₹ 50,000/- 3. Shri Parvesh Jain ₹ 1 lakh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s Max and Sh. Pravesh Jain was only acting as per the instructions of Sh. Ashok Jain and was only getting a payment of ₹ 25,000/- per month. However, this is incorrect, as he, as well as Sh. Ashok Jain, have retracted those statements. M/s Max is an independent unit owned by Sh. Pravesh Jain. The allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance on the basis of some entries in the spiral note book recovered from the factory premises of M/s. Max is without any basis, since for the manufacture of the huge quantity of finished goods, alleged to have been cleared clandestinely by M/s. Max, extra raw-material, power, man power and packing material would be required. Revenue has not produced any evidence of any extra power consumption, employment of extra man power or procurement of raw-material for manufacture of the finished goods. Therefore, there is no justification for imposition of penalty on Sh. Parvesh Jain. 8. Ld. DR submitted that the main appeal filed on behalf of the manufacturers and Shri Ashok Jain has already been dismissed by the Tribunal and hence, the order has become final, as far as the demand of duty and imposition of penalty against Shri Ashok Jain. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement dated 21.01.2008 that he was regularly purchasing cosmetics from Shri Ashok Jain both under bills and without bills. In respect of goods purchased without bills, payments were settled in cash and for goods purchased with bills, payments were settled by cheque. Statement of Shri Darshan Lal has never been retracted. From the premises of M/s BDFH ledger book has been recovered giving details of the goods procured from Shri Ashok Jain with and without bills. These were found to tally with a spiral notebook recovered from the premises of M/s. Max and have further been corroborated by the statements of Shri Darshan Lal and Parvesh Jain. The investigation undertaken by DGCEI has revealed that during the period 01.06.2003 to 21.01.2008, BDFH and D.D. brothers have procured and traded in cosmetics cleared without payment of duty by Shri Ashok Jain. The Central Excise duty so evaded by Shri Ashok Jain amounts to about ₹ 3.5 crores. Hence, it is established that BDFH, whose Proprietor is Shri Darshan Lal, have abetted in evasion of duty by Shri Ashok Jain. 13. It has been argued on behalf of BDFH that penalty has been imposed on them taking into account the combined value of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
