9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Appeal No. 89773 of 2018 - A/87169/2021 - Dated:- 18-11-2021 - HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Amruta Mishra, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. NSK/EXCUS/000/APPL/231/18-19 dated 03.08.2018 of the Commissioner of Central Excise CGST (Appeals), Nasik. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner, by which a penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/- has been imposed upon the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.1 A case was booked against M/s. Ramdas Ispat Metals Pvt. Ltd. (RIMPL) for clandestine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at any stage of hearing of an appeal, grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing : Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal. Therefore the counsel was asked to argue the matter. 3.3 Learned Authorised Representative reiterated the findings recorded by the lower authorities for imposing penalty on the appellant. 4.1 Considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 While upholding the penalty as imposed by the Additional Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as follows:- .. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. As the main noticee M/s. RIMPL has not filed any appeal against the impugned order the appellant as a co-noticee cannot take a plea on behalf of them. As already discussed the appellant has failed to controvert the confessional statement of Shri Prashant Chavan made in his statement dated 31.05.2012. The appellant being the Director of M/s. RIPL cannot take umbrage that he did not personally handle the impugned goods. The plea taken by the appellant defies logic and hence not acceptable. The act of paying the main noticee M/s. RIMPL in cash as consideration towards the clandestinely cleared 1078.11 MT of MS Ingots is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
