9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit manufacturing Polyester/Synthetic Yarn, Cotton Yarn and Blended Yarn; that the appellant maintains a running bond account which at the time of clearance of goods meant for export, is debited with an amount equivalent to the Central Excise Duty payable on the goods cleared; that the appellants in the month of June, 1996 cleared five consignments for e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pter VA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the Ld. Commissioner proceeded to impose penalty under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules; that this rule was not invoked in the SCN; that the Commissioner himself holds that the appellants are liable to penal action under Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the imposition of penalty under Rule 209 is incorrect. 3. Ld. Counsel submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposition of penalty under Rule 209 on the individuals is not correct. In support of his above legal contentions, Ld. Counsel refers to various Rules relevant for the purpose. Ld. Counsel submits that in view of the above submissions, the three appeals may be allowed. 6. Shri R.D. Negi, ld. DR submits that the appellants cleared goods for export but diverted them to Domestic Tariff Area. He subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty imposable in the present case will be Rs. 10,000 (Ten Thousand). 8. We have perused the various case laws cited and relied upon by the Counsel for the appellants. We find that there is no contravention of the rules by the other two appellants, therefore, imposition of penalty on the other two appellants is not sustainable in law. The same is set aside. The three appeals are disposed of in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
