9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to send confirmation through return mail and on receipt of instruction, he himself as an employee used to take delivery of the goods from M/s. AOPL. The appellant - Shri Pankaj Khubani used to go to AOPL to take delivery on behalf of the Allure International, as per directions of the other partners and as he was the junior most in the firm. It is further observed in the impugned order that AOPL, Bhiwadi and their manufacturer suppliers took recourse to issue of fictitious documents to cover up the operations of the firm for diversion of duty free goods with intent to evade payment of duty on the said goods. It is further evident that in the course of investigation, Shri Pankaj Khubani, inter alia, stated that he was more or less a dummy p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ardwaj, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER These appeals have been filed by the partnership firm, M/s. Allure International and one of its partners, Shri Pankaj Khubani, against the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. M/s. Alcome Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "M/s. AOPL") was engaged in duty free import of perfumery compound, glass bottles, spray pumps, dibbi manufacturing and export of perfumes. M/s.AOPL imported duty free raw materials under Advance Authorisation and after fulfilment of export obligation, the leftover stock of raw materials were diverted in the domestic market. It has been alleged that M/s. AOPL has diverted the imported goods procured duty free to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, inter alia, no penalty can be imposed on the partnership firm under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. 9. Ld. Counsel for the appellant relies on the ruling in the case of Woodman Industries - 2004 (164) EALT 339 (Tribunal). Further, on the ruling in the case of Aditya Steel Industries - 1996 (84) ELT 229 (Tribunal). He also urges that penalty should not be imposed on the partnership firm. Moreover, the appellant, Shri Pankaj Khubani was a partner for the name sake with the Manghani Brothers, who were managing the firm. The said Manghani Brothers are the Director in the Alcome Overseas Pvt. Ltd. It is further urged that this appellant is a partner for name sake and working as employee, was under the control of the Manghani brothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shri Hansraj Manghani, Director of AOPL in his statement, has admitted that they under the garb of scrap, removed the goods without using the same in the manufacture of goods for export. It was further revealed during investigation that AOPL did not submit monthly return after August, 2006 nor maintained the stock registers for receipt and issue of duty free goods after December, 2006. Maintenance of such records was mandatory in terms of Rule 5 of Central Excise Rules. 12. It is further evident that in the course of investigation, Shri Pankaj Khubani, inter alia, stated that he was more or less a dummy partner in Allure International Ltd. and the actual persons controlling over the firm are Manghani Brothers. Further, he was working on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
