9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity has imposed equal penalty of ₹ 20,31,243/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the firm and also imposed equal penalty on Partner Shri M. A. Mathew under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 which according to me is on a very higher side because once the equal penalty has been imposed on the firm, the imposition of penalty of ₹ 20,31,243/- on the Partner is not justified and therefore the penalty reduced to ₹ 1,00,000/- on Shri M. A. Mathew, Partner of the firm under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/20140, 20274/2019-SM - Final Order No. 20477-20478 /2019 - Dated:- 20-6-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. M. S. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for subsequent period and the duty liability remained unpaid. 2.1 Shri M. A. Mathew, Partner s statement was recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944, on 30.10.2015 and wherein the Partner clearly revealed that they have cleared the excisable goods without payment of Central Excise duty for the period from October 2013 to September 2015 and also have not filed the returns for subsequent period and therefore, an offence case was registered by the Headquarters Preventive Unit of Bengaluru IV Commissionerate. Thereafter, the appellant filed the returns for the period from October 2013 to September 2015 on various dates. From the sales ledger submitted, it appears that they are liable to pay dues amounting to ₹ 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed filing of ER-8 returns. Further, the show-cause notice also proposed personal penalty on Shri M.A. Mathew, Partner under Rule 26 of Central Excise Act, 2002. After following the due process, the original authority vide the Order-in-Original dated 30.5.2017 confirmed the demand as proposed in the show-cause notice but the original authority also imposed penalty of ₹ 20,31,243/- on Shri M. A. Mathew, Partner under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who rejected the appeal of the partnership firm and with regard to the Partner Shri M.A. Mathew, the Commissioner (A) held that he did not file any appeal as he has not paid the statutory pre-deposit toward ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn in time. He further submitted that Partner Shri M. A. Mathew has been imposed equal penalty of ₹ 20,31,243/- under Rule 26, which has not been invoked in the show-cause notice. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that it is a case where admittedly the duty was collected from the buyers and not paid to the Government. He further submitted that after collecting the duty from the buyer and not paying to the Government is clearly with an intention to evade payment of duty and therefore, the penalty has been rightly imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules. He also submitted that in the show-cause notice, Rule 26 of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
