9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the ld. Counsels appearing for the appellant and ld. SDR for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned order. It may be mentioned here that vide the impugned order, Commissioner has confirmed duty of Rs. 1.25 crores (approximate) against one M/s. Neha synthetics (Proprietary firm with Shri Prem Ganesh Salihar as its Proprietor) along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount on the said concern on the findings of clandestine processing and removal of processed fabrics. Penalties have also been imposed upon some other noticees. It may be clarified that the appeals of either M/s. Neha Synthetics or any other person except the present three appellants is not before us and no orders, in respect thereof are being passed by u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In terms of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills v. UOI, as reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 507 (Delhi), no penalty was to be imposed under the said Act, for evasion of Additional Duty of Excise, inasmuch as there were no provisions for the same under the said act at the relevant point of time. The said decision of the Hon'ble High Court was cited before the Commissioner, who has refused to follow the same on the ground that the Revenue has not accepted the same and has filed SLP thereagainst before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is now seen that the SLP filed by the Revenue stands dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2002 (145) E.L.T. A74. As such, penalty could not be imposed upon the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also seen that Shri R.S. Jajoo, has been giving contradictory statements. He has deposed that various trading firms were owned by Shri Ashar, whereas in his subsequent statement he had admitted that he was the owner of the three firms. This fact shows that the statements given by Shri Jajoo was not reflecting the correct position. Further, the statement of one Shri J.C. Mittal is only to the effect that Shri Ramesh Ashar was handling and dealing with the grey fabrics sent by them to Shri Salihar. The appellant's contention is that such procuring and dispatching of grey fabrics or dies and colours does not result in conclusive prove that he was knowing the clandestine activities of M/s. Neha Synthetics and does not result in violation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehalf of M/s. Neha Synthetics with full knowledge that the same was to be used by M/s. Neha Synthetics for clandestine activities. As such, by taking note of the various decisions relied upon by the appellants, we hold that even for the period after amendment to Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 with effect from 13-5-1994, there is not sufficient evidence to hold Shri Ramesh Ashar and Shri Arun Ashar liable to penalty under the provisions of Rule 209A. 5. As regards penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on Shri R.S. Jajoo, the reasoning as given by us in the preceding paragraphs in case of other two appellants would squarely apply. As such, by extending the benefit of doubt we set aside the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
