9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e evidences - HELD THAT:- It is a fact that investigation has been done after resigning of the Directors from the company. No corroborative evidence has been produced by Revenue showing that the appellants were actively involved in the clandestine removal of the goods and without specifically assigning the reasons that the appellants were involved in the clandestine removal of the goods, penalty cannot be imposed, as held by this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT VERSUS RAKESH SINGHAL [ 2006 (6) TMI 407 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] . Thus, penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed on the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned order qua imposing Rs.10.00 Lakhs each on both the appellants is set aside - appeal allowed. - HON ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stigation and they were not knowing any documents pertaining to the activity of the said company. Moreover, the appellants are located in Jamshedpur, whereas the factory is located in Purulia, West Bengal. Further, the appellants are not looking after the day to day activity of the factory at Purulia. It is his submission that the penalties have been imposed on the appellants merely on the basis of the investigation conducted at later stage, when the appellants have no concern with the said company, therefore, without any corroboration or independent witness penalty cannot be imposed on them. They relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jaswinder Singh Vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi [1996 (83) E.L.T. 175 (Tribunal)]. He f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvolved in the clandestine removal of the goods and without specifically assigning the reasons that the appellants were involved in the clandestine removal of the goods, penalty cannot be imposed, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Rakesh Singhal (supra), wherein this Tribunal in Para 6 has held as under:- 6. In this case the revenue is asking for penalty on the present respondent who was the Director of the firm where the goods were found short. The adjudicating authority held that the present respondent was aware of every activity of the firm and everything was in his knowledge. There is no finding nor any allegation in the SCN regarding particular commission on the part of the respondent which show that there was intention to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
