9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Final Order No. F/O 77434-77435/2017 - Dated:- 21-9-2017 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Hon ble Judicial Member Sri N.K. Chowdhury, Advocate For the Appellant Sri H.S. Abedin, A.C. (A.R.) For the Respondent ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of printed aluminium collapsible tubes classifiable under Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Central Excise officers of Anti-Evasion Wing of Kolkata-VII Commissionerate, searched the factory premises and office-cum-residential premises of the director of the appellant company. A show cause notice dated-10/11/2009 with corrigendum dated 5/5/2010 and show cause notice dated-4/5/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 7) Interest at the appropriate rate on ₹ 46,299/- under Rule 8 (3) read with Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 8) Penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- + ₹ 25,000/- on Sri B.N. Jain, Director of M/s. Alco Prints Pvt. Ltd. (Noticee No. 2) under Rule 26 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for defrauding Government Exchequer with motive to evade payment of Central Excise duty by M/s. Alco Prints Pvt. Ltd. 9) Penalty of ₹ 10,000/- on Sri Utpal Dey (Noticee No.3) of impugned order-in-original dated 11.05.2011 under Rule 26 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was also upheld as he has not filed any appeal and as was also instrumental i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y penalty equal to duty evaded under Section 11AC, neither more or less. CBE C has confirmed that under Section 11AC, there is no discretion to adjudicating authority to impose penalty less than or more than the amount of duty evaded. Therefore, I feel that penalty on notice No.1 under Section 11AC has rightly been imposed. I find that in the grounds of appeal, the appellant contended that the PLA amount was actually not paid because of the employee of the company did not deposit the same. However, it was a case of violation of Rule 8 (3A) and penalty cannot be imposed. 4. I agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeal) that allegation of producing false or fake TR-6 challans was not disputed. Hence, the appellant is not enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
