Company's duty confirmed, reduced penalty upheld; Director's penalty set aside due to lack of evidence.

The duty confirmation under the Customs and Central Excise Acts against the company appellant was upheld, with a reduced penalty amount. However, the penalty against the director was set aside due to lack of evidence. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty under Customs Act against the company appellant.
2. Imposition of penalty under Customs Act and Central Excise Rules against the company appellant and its director.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were directed against an order confirming duty under the Customs Act against the company appellant. The company had obtained approval for setting up a manufacturing unit and had permission to remove goods for various purposes. However, it was found that goods cleared for display were not returned to the factory but disposed of in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). The company also disposed of imported goods in violation of regulations. The appellants failed to respond to show cause notices, and their arguments were not substantiated. The Tribunal upheld the duty confirmation against the company appellant but reduced the penalty imposed.

2. Regarding the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act and Central Excise Rules against the company appellant and its director, it was found that the director did not have a direct role in the removal of goods for demonstration or repair purposes. The day-to-day affairs were managed by another individual who admitted to the disposal of goods in the DTA. As there was insufficient evidence implicating the director, the penalty against him was set aside entirely. The duty confirmation against the company appellant was upheld, but the penalty amount was reduced based on the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the duty confirmation under the Customs and Central Excise Acts against the company appellant was upheld, with a reduced penalty amount. However, the penalty against the director was set aside due to lack of evidence. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---