2017 (5) TMI 334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unamiya and Shri Kanayalal M. Bhanushali, transporter, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a detailed finding about their involvement in the act of removal of goods without payment of duty. Penalty on employees - Held that: - the said employees had acted as per direction of the Director of the Company who was managing day to day affairs. In these circumstances, the penalty imposed on the employees seems to be little harsh - penalty imposed on each of the employees namely, Shri Raghunath Malik and Shri Hemal Rameshbhai Desai is reduced from ₹ 1.50 lakh and ₹ 1.0 lakh to ₹ 50,000/-. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Restoration Applications No.10100, 10099, 10098, 10097, 10096 of 2017 an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment of the conditions prescribed thereunder. In support, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Surat I vs. Krishnaram Dyeing Finishing works 2013 (298) ELT 376 (Guj.). He further submits that personal penalty imposed on the Director, employees and transporter is too harsh. Hence, a lenient view may be taken and penalty imposed on these persons be reduced. 5. Per contra, ld. A.R. for the Revenue fairly accepted that the benefit to discharge of 25% of the penalty imposed under Sec.11AC of CEA,1944 was not extended to them by the authorities below and he has no objection for the same. However, he has vehemently objected to the plea of reduction i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rector was the mastermind in clearance of the gods without payment of duty and the transporter has consciously participated in the said removal of the goods; therefore, penalty imposed on the Director and on the transporter, in my opinion, does not require any interference. However, as far as employees are concerned, from the evidence recorded in the impugned order, I find that the said employees had acted as per direction of the Director of the Company who was managing day to day affairs. In these circumstances, the penalty imposed on the employees seems to be little harsh. Accordingly, penalty imposed on each of the employees namely, Shri Raghunath Malik and Shri Hemal Rameshbhai Desai is reduced from ₹ 1.50 lakh and ₹ 1.0 lak .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X