9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate for the appellant-assessee. Shri Amit Kumar Mishra, Dy. Commr., (A.R.) for the Department. Per Mr. Anil Choudhary The appellant herein is Director of Somani Iron Steels Ltd. (SISL for short) vide common Order-in-Original dated 28.01.1998, a penalty of ₹ 50,00,000/- was imposed under Section 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The finding against him in the OIO is that, he is Managing Director of SISL and as such was aware with the clandestine removal of the company and was also the beneficiary, wherein a demand of ₹ 4,39,98,310/- was imposed vide the same common OIO. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant urges that there is no finding of his involvement in any clandestine activity. He further re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f production per heat. The private record recovered from the factory premises only relates to the period from 01/01/1993 to 17/01/1993 and most of the entries alleged to have been made by one Sh. Lalit Tewari No statement of Sh. Lalit Tewari was recorded. The allegation against the appellants is that their employee, Sh. Lalit Tweari made entries in the private record in a codified manner and there is no evidence on record to show that relevant records, recovered from the appellants factory, were in the hands of Sh. Lalit Tewari. 6. The contention of the appellants is that the production for the period from 17/01/1993 to 18/01/1993 i.e. his were not recorded in their statutory records due to the visit of Excise Officers and this produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the pilferage of power. Therefore, the power consumption records as maintained by the party and also based on which the U.P. Electricity Board took their charges could not fully relied'. We find that these are general observations and without any evidence on records. There is no allegation that the appellants were involved in the theft of electricity. Appellants produced records regarding consumption of electricity during the relevant time to show that from the power consumed by them, the alleged quantity of M.S. ingots cannot be produced. This evidence is not rebutted by the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority rejected the same on the basis of general presumption, which is not sustainable. 14. In respect of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 50,000/- and penalty on others appellants was set aside, only the name of this appellant was left out, as it appears, by the Tribunal. As such it is just and proper to set aside the penalty on this appellant also in view of the categorical finding of this Tribunal. 4. Learned A.R. relied on the impugned order and also on order of this Tribunal refered above and stated that disproportionate penalty may be maintained as he was the Managing Director and C.E.O. of the company and as such he was definitely aware with the misdeeds going on in the company. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, we are satisfied, taking notice of the findings in the final order of this Tribunal referred above, where demand and penalty have been red ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
