9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able in the facts of the present case. Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that:- The penalty under Section 11AC is also legal and correct in respect of the demand pertaining to the extended period - As regards the penalty imposed for the normal period it cannot be said that the appellants have suppressed any fact for the reason that once a show cause notice was issued in subsequent show cause notice of the same issue, the suppression of the fact cannot be alleged - penalty under Section 11AC cannot be imposed in respect of demand raised in the normal period. Personal penalty imposed on Shri Rakesh Harish Kumar Shah - Held that:- He is only an employee of the company in the matter relates to the removal of the goods within the factory for captiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of fly ash bricks was proposed and also penalty under Section 11AC. In the first show cause notice dated 13.10.2009, the personal penalty on Shri Rakesh Harish Kumar Shah, Manager of M/s Atul Ltd was also proposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The adjudication authority confirmed the demand in all three show cause notices, imposed penalty under Section 11AC and also imposed penalty on Shri Rakesh Harish Kumar Shah for an amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- under Rule, 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants being aggrieved by the order-in-original filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be rejected, therefore, the present appeals. 2. Shri Rakesh Harish Kumar Shah, Manager of the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the part of the appellant, hence, the demand for the extended period was rightly invoked. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. As per the submission made by the appellants, there is no dispute that the demand raised in the captive consumption of fly ash bricks is clearly sustainable on merit. The only issue to be decided is: whether the demand raised for extended period by invoking the proviso to Section 11 A (i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is legal and correct or otherwise. The second issue in the facts and circumstances of the case is: whether the penalty imposed under Section 11AC is correct and legal. The third point is: whether the personal penalty imposed on Shri Rakesh H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c., should exist. After issuance of first show cause notice, all these ingredients do not exist; therefore, penalty under Section 11AC cannot be imposed in respect of demand raised in the normal period. As regard the penalty imposed on Shri Rakesh Harish Kumar Shah, we find that he is only an employee of the company in the matter relates to the removal of the goods within the factory for captive consumption. In these facts, it cannot be said that the employee Shri Rakesh Harish Kumar Shah was involved in any malafide Act. Therefore, in our view, the penalty was not required to be imposed on the employee of the company considering the nature of the offence and overall facts and circumstances of the case. 6. As per our above discussion, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
