TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er authority demanding central excise duty of Rs. 42,730/-, appropriating Rs. 95,000/- from the bank guarantee executed when the seized goods were released provisionally, imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 173Q(1) on M/s. Rinkoo Processors Pvt. Ltd. and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the director of the appellant-company under Rule 209A. 2 Briefly the facts are that on verifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seizure at the folding house on two different dates in the year 1994. Shri M.M. Garg, Director of the appellant company, in his statement, deposed that excisable goods were cleared without central excise formalities for the reason that the excise clerk was absent and also due to urgency involved in delivering the finished goods to their customers. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned advocate p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed when the duty is discharged before the issue of show cause notice. He argued that in this case also duty has been paid even before the issue of show cause notice and so no penalty should have been imposed. 5. I have gone through the records and the submissions made by both sides. The two cases cited above refer to penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. I find that the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|