9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order imposing penalties on both the appellants alleging that they were in the activity of clandestine removal of the goods. 2. The facts of the case are that both the appellants were Directors of M/s. Vijaya Sponge & Ispat Pvt.Ltd. and they left the company in August 2007. An investigation was initiated against the said company alleging clandestine removal of the goods on the basis of certain printouts and private records seized from the premises of the said company for the period 01.04.2006 to 07.06.2007. On the basis of that allegation, a demand of Rs.24,99,736/- was proposed against the company and also proposed to impose penalties on the appellants. Appellants did not join the investigation at initial stage. Later on, after is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as held by this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh vs. Gurmeet Singh [2014 (314) E.L.T. 689 (Tri.- Del.)]. He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Meerut vs. Rakesh Singhal [2007 (208) E.L.T. 432 (Tri.-Del.)]. 4. On the other hand, the Ld.Authorized Representative for the department opposed the contentions of the appellants and submitted that during the impugned period for which allegation has been made of clandestine removal, the appellants were the Directors of the said company and looked after day to day activity of the company. Moreover, the appellants despite various summons issued to them did not join the investigation. Therefore, at this stage they cannot take im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as reason to believe are liable for confiscation is liable to penalty. The Tribunal in the case of J. Mitra & Co. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 524 set aside the penalty on the Director which was imposed on the ground that the Director being overall incharge of the firm is liable for penalty. The Tribunal held that in absence of any evidence on record to show that the Director did anything with mens rea against the revenue or he had personal entertained belief that the goods were liable for confiscation under Central Excise Law, therefore, penalty on Director is not sustainable. In the present case also there is no such evidence. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
