9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise duty after crossing the exemption limit. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 6,50,962/- and also ordered for appropriation of the same amount which was already paid an amount of Rs. 6,792/- towards the Cenvat Credit. It was also confirmed the demand of interest and the amount already paid was appropriated. As against the demand of duty an equal penalty of Rs. 6,50,962/- was also imposed with option of reduced penalty to the extent of 25% in terms of first proviso to Section 11AC. In addition a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed on Shri Vishal M. Lunkad, Power of Attorney holder of the appellant firm. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), seekin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant to seek redressal at appropriate. Therefore no further order required to pass on this issue. As regard penalty under Section 11AC, he submits that the appellant, after crossing the exemption limit of Rs. 1.5 Crores kept on removing the goods without payment of duty and the same was not disclosed to the department, accordingly the penalty under Section 11AC was rightly imposed. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by Ld. AR and perused the record and also the submissions made by the appellant in their grounds of appeal. I find that as regard the confirmation demand there is no contest by the appellant therefore the demand stands upheld. As regard grievance that the amount of Rs. 89,700/- was wrongly appropriated, I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttorney holder Shri Vishal M. Lunkad, I find that in the facts and circumstances of the case and as per his role that he is looking after the entire affair of the factory he is responsible for non-payment of excise duty therefore the provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rule, 2002 is applicable. However taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the appellant that they have discharged the entire liability, the appellant Shri Vishal M. Lunkad deserve for leniency, accordingly the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only). As a result, the appeal of M/s. Prabha Plastics is dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
