9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating the duty on theoretical basis. Besides this, personal penalty imposed on the appellant is solely on the ground that he was the Director of the company and in-charge of the day-to-day affairs in running the company. This Tribunal in the case of M/S MITTAL PIGMENT PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, JAIPUR [ 2016 (9) TMI 1016 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] held that in the absence of sufficient evidence, imposition of penalty on the Director merely being in-charge of the company cannot be sustained. Also, it is found that in the show-cause notice, there has been no proposal nor any allegation indicating that the goods which were cleared are liable for confiscation. Thus, imposition of personal penalty under Rule 26(1) on the appellant is unsustainable in law an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under Section 31 of the IBC, 2016 was passed and taking note of the said order, this Tribunal vide Final Order No.21231 21232/2023 dated 9.11.2023 held that the appeal filed by M/s. Basai Steels Pvt. Ltd. abates. It is his contention that the allegations against the manufacturing company revolves around non-accounting and clearance of the goods without payment of duty, which is based on the alleged non-maintenance of proper accounts relating to receipt and consumption of raw materials such as iron ore, coal, etc., during the relevant period. It is his contention that since the appeal filed by the company has been abated and the liability extinguished, hence without adjudication of the improper accounting and alleged clearance of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is solely based on assumptions and presumptions. On the other hand, they have adduced evidence by way of Chartered Engineer certificate establishing the fact that the goods alleged to have been manufactured in factory were in fact not manufactured and cleared by company. Also, it is argued that merely because the appellant is the Director of the company, imposition of penalty under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is unwarranted and cannot be sustained. In support, he referred to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Mittal Pigments Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, Jaipur: 2018 (360) ELT 157 (Tri.-Del.) upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan as reported at 2018 (16) GSTL 41 (Raj.). 4. Per contra, the learned Authorised Represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
