9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the Director only and not anyone else. However, the appellant being worked as DGM Finance ultimately all the transactions are finally booked in the books of accounts and for which the appellant is responsible as he was aware with the transaction made without payment of duty. As regard the duty, the same has been admitted by the company therefore the evasion of duty is not under dispute - As regard the judgment cited by both the sides, as regard the penalty under Rule 26 each case has to be dealt with in its fact therefore, without relying to any judgment considering the involvement of the appellant, the appellant deserves for leniency therefore, penalty reduced from Rs. 10 lacs to Rs. 1 lac. The impugned order in respect of the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard the present appellant, he has no role in the non-payment of duty by the company as the work related to removal of goods was being handled by one Shri S.G. Pathak. Even, the present appellant has not given any statement in his personal capacity. He has given a statement only for and on behalf of the Director of the company. In this fact, the appellant being not involved in case of evasion of duty, cannot be imposed penalty under Rule 26. He also submits that no specific sub-rule or clause of Rule 26 was invoked for imposing penalty. For this reason also the penalty under Rule 26 was wrongly imposed. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments:- Commissioner of C. EX. Chandigadh Vs. Pepsi Food Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2020 Mangalam Druga Organics Ltd Vs. CCE, Surat-I A/12582-12584/18 dtd14.11.2018 Rajeev Reniwal Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad III A/10972/2018 dtd 15.03.2018 Paragon Steel Ltd Vs. CCE, Calicut 2018 (15) GSTL 298 (Tri-Bang) Goyal Ispat Ltd Vs. CCE, Puducherry ,2017 (6) GSTL 210 (Tri-Chennai) Sanjay Vimalbhai Deora Vs. CESTAT 2014 (306) ELT 533 (Guj.) Sanjay Vimalbhai Deora Vs. CESTAT 2014 (309) ELT A131 (Guj.) 04. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. I find that there is a force in the counsel s submission that from the record it appears that the major work related to removal of goods is looked after by one Shri S.G. Pathak and the appellant s personal statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
