9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen compared with the stocks recorded in RG-1 Register. When it is so, the penalty imposed of ₹ 1 lakh on the appellant No.1 cannot be reduced further - penalty upheld. The penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- has been imposed on appellant No.2, whereas he contests that day-to-day affairs were looked after by Lab In-charge. He has been only overall in-charge of the appellant-company. However, the appellant No.2 being overall in-charge cannot completely absolve himself of the responsibility of complying with the law of Central Excise in respect of payment of appropriate duty of Central Excise and following the right procedures as prescribed by the law of Central Excise - considering the fact that he has been overall in-charge and not looki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Tariff. (ii) Appellant No.2 is Shri Rajan Shinde, Executive Director of the appellant M/s. VPPL. (iii) Central Excise officers intercepted and seized four tankers of appellant-company, VPPL on 21.12.2002 containing 53.520 MTs of molasses as the goods were not accompanied by Central Excise invoice. (iv) Central Excise officers visited the factory of the appellant-company and verified the records and found shortage of 1055.68 MTs of molasses, when compared with the stock recorded in RG-1 register. (v) The department started investigation and recorded the statements of various personnel of the appellant-company. (vi) Thereafter, the appellants were issued show-cause notice dated 16.6.2003 which was adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws that standard procedure of stock verification to be carried out in the presence of Pancha witnesses was not followed. (vi) Therefore, the imposition of penalty of ₹ 1 lakh on appellant No.1 is not sustainable. (vii) The impugned order does not give any findings as to how the appellant No.2 had concerned himself with the alleged offences charged against the appellant-company. (viii) The appellant No. 2 gave the statement that day-to-day affairs of the appellant No.1, was looked after by the Lab In-charge and he is only overall in-charge of the appellant-company. (ix) Without establishing that appellant No.2 had involvement in the alleged clandestine clearances, provisions of Rule 26 cannot be pressed against him. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor, he is to be held responsible for the lapses pointed out in the show-cause notice (SCN) issued. Further, there has not been any reasonable explanation for the shortage of 1055.68 MTs of molasses. In this regard also appellant No.2 has to own the responsibility. However, considering the fact that he has been overall in-charge and not looking after day-to-day affairs of the factory and when the appellant no.1, who are the main offenders and main noticee, have been imposed a penalty of ₹ 1 lakh, the quantum of ₹ 5,00,000/- imposed on appellant No. 2 does not seem to be proportionately appropriate. Considering the fact that the main accused has been imposed a penalty of ₹ 1 lakh, the penalty imposed on the appellant No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
