9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions, as indicated by the bank statement, had recorded the purchase of raw material and sale of finished goods, however, the transactions could not be verified against the relevant statutory register due to the negligence on the part of the appellant in not maintaining proper records, which contravenes the provisions under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - demand upheld. Penalty u/r 26 - Held that:- It has been stated that he had no knowledge of the alleged irregularity. In any event, the appellant No. 2 had deposited the duty suo moto during the investigation - the Revenue has failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant No. 2 has contravened any of the provisions under Rule 26 of the Rules - penalty not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and penalty. On 04.02.2010, the Superintendent, DGCEI, Rourkela Regional Unit recorded the statement of the managing director as per Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 25,79,096/- along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty. A penalty of ₹ 26,00,000/- was also imposed upon the Managing Director, the appellant No. 2 herein. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. Hence the present appeals before the Tribunal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 4. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the certificates of the furnace manufacturer and the Orissa State Pollution Control Board, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bank transactions, as indicated by the bank statement, had recorded the purchase of raw material and sale of finished goods, however, the transactions could not be verified against the relevant statutory register due to the negligence on the part of the appellant in not maintaining proper records, which contravenes the provisions under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 7. I find that the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Shalu Dyeing Printing Mills v. Commr. Of Cus Excise, Surat reported as 2003 (152) ELT 352 (Tri.-Mumbai) is squarely applicable to the instant case. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced: Normally some test should be adopted for judging the case but where a clandestine removal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. I note that the judgment in the case of Universal Polythelene Industries (supra) had observed that the assessee had justified the inflated figures in the records for the purpose of loan, etc. and to project a rosy picture of the company. I find that this judgment is not applicable to the instant case. 9. I find the submissions of the appellant unpersuasive, and therefore, the demand of duty along with interest against the appellant company is sustainable. Since, ₹ 20,00,000/- has already been paid by the appellant company and has been appropriated by the adjudication order, the appellant company is liable to pay the balance amount of ₹ 5,79,096/- and the applicable interest. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
