9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudication order, it is evident that goods were liable for confiscation. Thus, the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be invoked for imposition of personal penalty - imposition of personal penalty on the appellant no. 2 under Rule 26 ibid is proper and justified - the quantum of penalty is reduced from ₹ 2, 00,000/- to ₹ 50,000/- - appeal allowed - decided par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bservations in Court as follows:- i. Partly allow the appeal to the Main Appellant to the extent of reducing the quantum penalty to 25% under Section 11AC, Central Excise Act, 1949. ii. Fully allow the appeal of the Applicant by setting aside the penalty or ₹ 2 Lacs imposed under Rule 26, CER, 2002 by relying upon the caselaw of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune reported in 2015 (3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellaneous Application, the same are incorrect and misleading inasmuch as no observations were made by the bench in the open court. The said fact is evident that the order was reserved on the date of hearing and was pronounced on 15.12.2016. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the in the operative portion at paragraph 8, though it was observed that the appeal are partially allowed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is distinguishable from the facts of the present case inasmuch as the goods were not held liable for confiscation. In the case in hand, it has been observed by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.12.2016 that the Director (appellant no. 2) has admitted non-accountal of raw material and clandestine removal of final goods and that the statement recorded before the Central Excise officer has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
