9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant company. Penalty on director u/r 26 of CER - Held that: - The Director of the appellant was knowing that the capital goods and inputs which have been cleared to their sister unit without intimating to the department are liable for confiscation, the penalty on Shri Jayeshkumar D Mistry is rightly imposed - however, the quantum is reduced. Appeal allowed in part. - E/10298, 10301/2017 - A/13768-13769/2017 - Dated:- 21-11-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri N. Gheewala, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri K. J. Kinariwala, AR ORDER Per : Mr. Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeals against the impugned order, challenging the penalties imposed on them. 2. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were received back by them and cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, it was only a procedure lapse on the part of the appellants, therefore, no penalties can be imposed on the appellants. He relied upon the decision of Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Indian Ispat Works Ltd. - 2015 (322) ELT 647 (Chhattisgarh). For the director, it is his contention that as the goods were not liable for confiscation, therefore, no penalty can be imposed on the director. He also relied upon the decision of Avishkar Processing Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner in tax appeal No. 862 of 2006 dated 08.01.2015. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR for the Revenue relied on the observations made by the authorities below in the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of such removal. If the investigation would not have been conducted at the appellant's factory, the clearances of these capital goods and inputs would not have come into light. Therefore, it is a clear case of suppression of facts by the appellants, therefore, the authorities below has rightly imposed 25% duty as penalty on the appellant company. Reliance placed by the Ld. Consultant for the appellant in the case of Indian Ispat Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case. In that circumstances, imposition of penalty on the appellant company, equivalent to 25% duty as penalty is confirmed. With regard the penalty imposed on the director of the appellant company, the Ld. Consultant relied upon the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
