9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty on Director - HELD THAT:- No specific evidence brought on record pointing out the role of the Directors towards wrong availement of benefit of the said notification intentionally. Since the order was directed to be confined for the normal period of limitation, there are no justification imposing personal penalty on the Director. The company s appeal is dismissed - the Director s appeal is allowed. - Excise Appeal No. 2022, 2011 of 2010 - A/88414-88415/2018 - Dated:- 28-11-2018 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. S. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri A.K. Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A.B. Kulgod, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 1944 on the appellant company M/s Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. and also imposed penalty of ₹ 2.00 lakhs on the Director under Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned Advocate Shri A.K. Singh for the appellant has submitted that in its order dated 10.4.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to ascertain the facts whether the Ready Mix Concrete for the relevant period has been manufactured at their unit at Pen and Pagdhe as recorded by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order or the same were manufactured at the construction site of the customers. Learned Advocate further submitted that they have installed a batching plant for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, is bad in law. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner. He has submitted that after analyzing the panchanama and the statements recorded, the learned Commissioner arrived at the findings that the claim of the appellant that the batching plants were situated at the site is without any basis, hence, not acceptable. Consequently, the demand was worked out for the period as directed. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing the appeal filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal s order dated 6.11.2006 observed as follows: - Therefore, for deciding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e construction site. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no dispute that BMC was manufactured at site. 7. The limited question for determination in the light of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to ascertain whether the ready mix concrete has been manufactured in Pen and Pagdhe and moved thereafter to the construction site or it was manufactured at site. Analyzing the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner in the de novo proceeding observed as under: - 25. Before concluding my findings, I must also place on record the submissions made by the Advocate during the personal hearing granted to the assessee on 23.07.2010. The Advocate has cited various paras of the show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les made there-under the site of the batching plant will be the site of the factory of the manufacture of RMC. Since it has been unambiguously proved that the location of the batching plant is not adjacent to the construction site but situated at a distance from the construction site, it would not be wrong to conclude that the aforesaid judgement of the larger bench in the case of Chief Engineer Ranjit Sagar Dam Vs. CCE, Jalandhar will also enrich the grounds for concluding that the RMC had not been manufactured at the construction site and used at the same site. The appellant could not place any evidence contrary to the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner that the ready mix concrete was manufactured not at site b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
