9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f un-accounted for finished goods in the factory is in-conformity with Rule 25 ibid, imposition of redemption fine and penalties on the appellant M/s Girraj Jee Office Systems, is proper and justified. Penalty u/r 26 on appellant Shri Rajesh Kumar - Held that: - penalty imposed on the appellant Shri Rajesh Kumar under Rule 26 ibid is not sustainable inasmuch as he is no way concerned or connec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n payment of redemption fine of ₹ 1.25 lakhs. Besides penalty of ₹ 50,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules was also imposed on the appellant M/s Girraj Jee Office Systems and ₹ 50,000/- on Shri Rajesh Kumar, Director of M/s Alka Furnishers (P) Ltd. under Rule 26 ibid. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has modified the adjudication order to the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Systems. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submits that for non-accountal of the finished goods in the statutory records, the same were confiscated under Rule 25 and since the said statutory provisions mandate imposition of redemption fine and the penalties, confirmation of such liability by the Commissioner (Appeals) is proper and justified. Ld. DR submits that Rule 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in my considered opinion, is proper and justified. Thus, the impugned order confirming such liability cannot be interfered with at this juncture. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by Shri Girraj Jee Office Systmes is rejected. 6. However, I find that penalty imposed on the appellant Shri Rajesh Kumar under Rule 26 ibid is not sustainable inasmuch as he is no way con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
