9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal No. 55210- 55211 of 2013 - FINAL ORDER NO. 57699-57700 /2017 - Dated:- 8-11-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the Appellants assessee Shri M R Sharma, AR for the Respondent Revenue ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan: The present appeals are filed against the Order-in-Original No. 54/Commr/CEx/BPL-II/2012 dated 17.10.12. The period of dispute is July, 2008 to October, 2008. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.9.08, the premises of M/s. Allianz Steels Pvt Ltd. Dewas, a manufacturer of MS ingots and on 1.10.2008 premises of M/s. Roshan Transport, Dewas was searched. In the raids, it was found that some MS ingots were supplied to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entry in the recipients register or not. He draws our attention to para 12 of the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. 6. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand for the goods said to have been manufactured using the ingots received from M/s. Allianz without account. The demand has been raised in respect totally 1245.60 MT ingot said to have been received from M/s. Allianz. During the course of verification of records of the appellant, it was noticed by the department that a quantity of 995.7 MT was shown by the supplier against the appellant. The same quantity has also been found accounted in the records maintained by the appellant. The duty liability on the goods manufactured out of 995.7 MT, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no reason to interfere with the impugned as far as duty demand is concerned. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the penalty of ₹ 10 lakh imposed on Sunil Bansal, Director under Rule 26 is on the higher side. Keeping in view the Doctrine of equity, and good conscience, we are of the view that penalty is on higher side. So, by modifying impugned order, we penalty is on higher side. So, we modify the impugned order and reduce the penalty to 50%. Thus, appellant will get relief pertaining to penalty for ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh) only. Remaining impugned order is hereby sustained. 10. In the result, appeals are partly allowed. [Order Pronounced in the open cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
