9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereas the reduced penalty equivalent to 15% of duty was paid by the appellant on 01/06/2015 which was well within a period of 30 days from the passing of the Finance Act, 2015 on 14/05/2013. Therefore in view of the amended provision, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of reduced penalty. Penalty on Director of the Company - Held that:- Once the proceedings against the main noticee i.e. the company are concluded on payment of reduced penalty of 15%, the proceedings against the co-noticee stands concluded. Impugned order set aside by allowing the appeals of the appellants insofar as the imposition of penalty in excess of reduced penalty of ₹ 46,923/- already paid and personal penalty of ₹ 1 lakh on the Director - app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppropriate the duty already paid by the company during the investigation. Further in the show-cause notice, there was proposal to impose personal penalty on Shri R.K. Dutta, Director of the company under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for his alleged acts of omission and commission. Before the original authority, the appellant submitted that they had deposited an amount of ₹ 3,06,332/- during investigation whereas the duty demanded in the show-cause notice was ₹ 2,92,818/- which had resulted in excess payment of ₹ 13,514/- and that the total interest payable by them worked out to ₹ 79,236/- and after adjusting the excess amount of ₹ 13,514/-, the balance interest payable by them was ₹ 65,722/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st liability was worked out as ₹ 79,236/- and the appellant paid ₹ 65,722/- vide challan dt. 01/06/2015 which was before passing of the Order-in-Original dt. 30/06/2015. He also submitted that an amount of ₹ 43,923/- being the amount equivalent to 15% of the duty amount towards penalty was also included in the challan dt. 01/06/2015. He also submitted that the duty of ₹ 2,92,818/-, interest of ₹ 65,722/- and reduced penalty of ₹ 43,923/- (equivalent to 15% of the duty) have all been appropriated in the impugned order. But still the Deputy Commissioner held that the appellants are not entitled to pay reduced penalty of 15% because the reduced penalty was not paid within 30 days from the date of issue of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -payment, short-payment or erroneous refund where an order determining duty under sub-section (10) of section 11A is passed after the date on which the Finance Bill, 2015 receives the assent of the President shall be eligible to payment of reduced penalty under clause (b) or clause (e) of sub-section (1), subject to the condition that the payment of duty, interest and penalty is made within thirty days of the communication of the order. 4.2. He further submitted that in the present case, the Order-in- Original was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 30/06/2015 and the reduced penalty was paid by the appellant on 01/06/2015 which was well within a period of 30 days from the passing of the Finance Act, 2015 on 14/05/2015. Therefore as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held by the Tribunal in the case of Sarogi Marketing cited supra. Therefore the imposition of equal penalty is not sustainable and therefore I set aside the same. As far as penalty on the Director of the company is concerned, I hold that once the proceedings against the main noticee i.e. the company are concluded on payment of reduced penalty of 15%, the proceedings against the co-noticee stands concluded in view of the decision in the case of Orbit Jewellers cited supra. 7. In view of my discussion above, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable. Therefore I set aside the same by allowing the appeals of the appellants insofar as the imposition of penalty in excess of reduced penalty of ₹ 46,923/- alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
