9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant that in respect of mint stools manufactured by them the goods did not carry brand name NAMASKAR as alleged by the Department in the show cause notice. - These factual aspects need to be verified by the Original Authority to determine which of the clearances indicated in annexure D-4 to the show cause notice had the brand name of another person and recompute the differential duty accordingly - matter on remand. The penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Rule 13 of CCR, 2004 confirmed by the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order is set aside - The penalty under Section 11AC shall stand reduced - Personal penalty on Shri M.V. Sekhar Rao and Smt. M. Vijayalakshmi is reduced to ₹ 25,000/- each. Appeal allowed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany which was adjudicated by the lower authority vide Order-in- Original No. Ex05/2009 dated 31.03.2009 confirming the allegations and demanding duty, interest and imposing penalties as under: i) Duty of ₹ 21,039/- on the shortage of finished goods found in the factory premises under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with appropriate interest under Section 11AB of the Act. ii) Duty of ₹ 23,369/- on alleged clandestine clearances of finished goods under section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act along with appropriate interest under Section 11AB of the Act, 1944. iii) Duty of ₹ 7,22,815/- on goods alleged to have been clandestinely manufactured and cleared under Section 11A(1) of the Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Act with reference to the duty demanded and upheld the penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Rule 13 of CCR, 2004. 5. In respect of the demands and penalties dropped by the First Appellate Authority, the Department had filed appeal No. E/1328-1330/2010 before this Bench but had withdrawn the appeal as per the new litigation policy and it was consequently dismissed as withdrawn and hence these issues have reached finality. In respect of the differential duty of ₹ 5,08,745/- and the penalties confirmed by the First Appellate Authority these appeals have been filed by the appellant. The appellant company pleaded on the following grounds: a) the First Appellate Authority has erred in confirming the demand of differential duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rightly confirmed in the impugned order and no need interference. He also explained that as far as the Department s appeal on the demands dropped by the First Appellate Authority is concerned, the same has been withdrawn on account of the new litigation policy. 8. We have considered the arguments made by both sides and perused the records. 9. The disputed demand is now confined to ₹ 5,08,745/- which is the demand towards differential duty on the ground that the appellant had irregularly availed concessional rate of duty under SSI scheme on which brand name of persons. The details of all these clearances are in annexure D-4 to the show cause notice. A perusal of annexure D-4 shows that this annexure describes goods, the value, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 10,000/- under Rule 13 of CCR, 2004 is concerned, since the demand on this account has already been set aside by the First Appellate Authority, the penalty needs to be set aside as well. As far as, the personal penalties on Shri. M.V. Sekhar Rao and Smt. M. Vijayalakshmi are concerned, we find Smt. M. Vijayalakshmi is the owner of the appellant private limited company which is also an SSI and it is hard to imagination she was not aware of the day to-day functioning of such a company. Therefore, she is liable for the alleged offences in the day to-day affairs of the company. Similarly, Shri M. V. Sekhar Rao is not only the husband of the Managing Director of the appellant company but also the owner of the M/s VSN Plastics Pvt. Ltd., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
