9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. BHV-EXCUS-OOO-APP-218 to 219-2018-19 dated 20.08.2018, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the officers of Central Excise conducted a coordinated search at the places of various brokers and transporters from where incriminating documents like various diaries, file, loose paper etc., were recovered. Further, searches were also conducted at the premises of re-rolling units and certain furnace units. Statements of Appellants recorded and entries recorded in the notebook/dairies retrieved during the course of investigation revealed the manufacture of excisable goods viz. MS Round /TMT Bars and clearances thereof to buyers which were made against cash transactions. Shri Himanshu Nandlal Jagan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted in 2014(305) ELT 480 (Guj.) and decision of division bench of Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Jai Prakash Motwani 2010(258) ELT 204 (Guj.). 4. He also submits that in case of Shri Atul Bansal, Director of M/s Bansal Castings Pvt. Ltd., Sihor in Appeal No. E/12133/2018, this Hon'ble Bench allowed the appeal filed by Shri Atul Bansal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant vide order No. A/11554-11556/2019 dated 21.08.2019. The present appeal is also based on the investigation conducted by the department from the records seized from the office premises of Shri Himanshubhai Jagani. Therefore the present appeal may also be allowed by setting aside the penalty 5. As regard the appeal of Shri Hiamanshu N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich he knew or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Central Excise Act, 1944 or rules made thereunder. Therefore, he rendered himself liable for penalty under Rule 26(1) of CER, 2002 and personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was rightly imposed on him. He also placed reliance on the following decision:- (i) Om Prakash Agarwal Vs CCE, Raipur - 2017(346) ELT 125 (Tri. Del) (ii) Haryana Steel and Alloys Ltd. Vs CCE, New Delhi -2017 (355) ELT 451 (Tri. Del) 7. He also submits that Final orders No. A/11554-11556/2019 dated 21.08.2018 and Final Order No. A/12258/2021 dated 17.06.2021 of this Hon'ble Tribunal are not applicable in this case and same is distinguishable because in these cases the manufacturer has contested t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions were correctly invoked to impose penalty on him. We do not find any reason to set aside such a reasoned orders for the imposition of penalty. However, the appellant being an individual considering the overall facts of this case, I reduce the penalty imposed on the appellant to Rs. 50,000/-. 10. As regard the Appeal of Shri Ashu Bhardwaj, Partner of M/s Shree Ram Ispat, we find that the Ld. Adjudicating authority in impugned order-in-appeal described the role of Appellant and had observed that the Appellant was engaged in clandestine removals of the goods as partner of M/s Shree Ram Ispat and facts of this case very clearly establish that he was the key person and was responsible for clandestine removal of the goods manufactured b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
