9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 20 lacs on Shri. Pankaj Jaju, penalties of Rs. 15,000/- each on Victor Industries, Crown Industries, Unique Trading Corporation and Suman Bardia were imposed under rule 26. In the first round of appeal before this Tribunal the matter was heard and remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing denovo adjudication order. Ld. Commissioner in denovo adjudication confirmed the demand of Rs. 42 lacs approximately and imposed penalty of Rs. 25 lacs on Pankaj jaju under Rule 26, Rs. 2 lacs on Unique Trading Corporation and Rs. 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 part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore penalty on these appellants is also not correct. 3. On the other hand, Shri. H.M. Dixit, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that since appeal of the main party M/s. Sunrise Zinc Ltd has been dismissed and confirmation of demand stand upheld. The adjudicating authority has brought out involvement of 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 Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons i.e. Victor Industries, Crown Industries 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. 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 Rs. 42 Lacs, the penalty commensurate to the said amount is also not proper. I therefore reduce penalty on Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
