9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfiscation of the goods is not made by the adjudicating authority. However in the findings given in para 51.4, it is clearly held that Shri. Pankaj Jaju knows and had reason to believe that goods were liable to confiscation therefore he was liable for penalty under Rule 26. As regard the penalties on the other persons i.e. Victor Industries, Crown Indystries Unique Trading Corporation and Suman Bardia, they are not related to the company who has indulged in the clandestine removal i.e. M/s. Sunrise Zink Ltd. However they were involved in dealing with the goods which were cleared clandestinely therefore their involvement in not direct but indirect involvement was very much established. The penalty imposed on the appellants are excess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approximately and imposed penalty of ₹ 25 lacs on Pankaj jaju under Rule 26, ₹ 2 lacs on Unique Trading Corporation and ₹ 15,000/- each on Victor Industries,. Crown Industries, and Suman Bardia. Against denovo adjudication order which is order impugned, appellant filed these appeals. The appeal of main party i.e M/s. Sunrise Zinc Ltd was dismissed for non compliance of pre-deposit hence the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority stand confirmed. 2. Shri. S.P. Seth, Ld. Counsel for the appellant made common submission in respect of all the appeals that in first adjudication against the demand of ₹ 42 lacs, an amount of ₹ 26.71 lacs was confirmed against which appellant M/s. Sunrise Zinc Ltd and othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the all appellants in 'the act of the clandestine removal of the goods by M/s. Sunrise Zinc Ltd therefore penalties were rightly imposed by the adjudicating authority. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 5. Though I agree with the Ld. Counsel that at the first adjudication, the demand of duty of ₹ 26.71 lacs was confirmed, party was in appeal, even though Tribunal has remanded the matter, the adjudicating authority was suppose to decide the matter relates to the demand of ₹ 26.71 lacs only, for the reason that demand which was dropped by the Commissioner was not challenged by the Revenue therefore dropping the said demand attained finality. However, the adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tablished. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the penalty imposed on the appellants are excessive which deserve to be reduced considering the nature of the case and their role. Since the duty should not have been confirmed to the tune of ₹ 42 Lacs, the penalty commensurate to the said amount is also not proper. I therefore reduce penalty on Shri Pankaj Jaju from ₹ 25 lacs to ₹ 4 Lacs and on other appellants i.e. Unique Trading Corporation penalty of ₹ 2 lacs to ₹ 25,000/- In respect of Victor Industries, Crown Industries and Suman Bardia, penalty of ₹ 15,000/- reduced to ₹ 10,000/- . Appeals are partly allowed in the above terms. [Pronounced in court] - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
