TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (5) TMI 343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs, Jaipur. The appellant was the authorized signatory of M/s. Reliable Poly Fib (India) Ltd. [for short, M/s RPFL] during the period relevant to this case. M/s. RPFL were a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). The appellant's brother Shri Richhpal Sharma was one of the Directors of another company, M/s. Pushpa Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. [for short M/s. PSML], which was also a 100% EOU. Both the companies were engaged in the manufacture of grey fabrics. For the manufacture of grey fabrics, M/s. PSML used polyester/nylon filament yarn either imported or procured from other 100% EOUs at 'nil' rate of duty. 106.062 MTs of nylon filament yarn so procured were shown to have been sold by them to M/s. RPFL at 'nil' rate of duty against CT-3s. The relev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Fib (India) Ltd., to regularize the irregular sale of M/s. PSML. Shri Tara Chand Shival (Sharma) had also made fictitious/bogus signature of incharge officer of Central Excise office, Surat in the rewarehousing register and AR-3As to show receipt of nylon filament yarn by M/s. Reliable Poly Fib (India) Ltd., Pipodara. Shri Tara Chand in his statement dated 9-9-2000 and 29-3-2000 recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 have admitted the above facts and the same was also confirmed by Shri Balkishan Jhawar, Director of M/s. Reliable Poly Fib (India) Ltd., in his statement dated 15-3-2000 recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and also by letter dated 29-3-2000." The show cause notices were contested by the notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-3-2000 and 29-3-2000 had been retracted by him by way of an affidavit on 4-4-2000. That affidavit was in Hindi. An English translation, duly notarised, was submitted to the Commissioner on 22-5-2001. None of these documents was considered by the Commissioner, who held that there was no retraction of the confessional statements. The penalty imposed on the appellant was a composite penalty under Rules 198 and 209A as well as Sections 112 and 117. Sections 112 and 117 could not be invoked simultaneously. It was also pointed out by the counsel that the maximum penalty imposable under Rule 198 was only Rs. 1000/-. The counsel also relied on the following decisions :- (i) Z.U. Alvi v. CCE,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lea that the statements dated 9-3-2000 and 29-3-2000 were retracted by the appellant before the adjudicating authority. It is claimed that the affidavit was in Hindi and the same was later on translated into English. An English translation of an affidavit dated 4-4-2000 is seen on record. A copy of the appellant's letter dated 20-5-2001 addressed to the Commissioner is also noticed. This appears to be the covering letter for the English translation of the affidavit dated 4-4-2000 and bears the date seal of the Commissioner's office indicating that this letter was received in that office on 22-5-2001. These documents, however, do not show that the original affidavit in Hindi was submitted to the Commissioner, nor is there any evidence on rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll within the purview of Rule 209A. Such is not the situation in the instant case. Admittedly, the appellant was not a mere employee of RPFL. He was the authorized signatory of the company and was, admittedly, incharge of general administration of the company. His brother was one of the Directors of the other company (M/s. PSML) which issued documents for the pretended removal of nylon filament yarn at 'nil' rate of duty to M/s. RPFL without physical clearance of the goods. The cited case, therefore, cannot be followed here, hi the case of D.K. Ariwalla (supra), a penalty imposed on an officer of a company under Rule 209A was set aside on the basis that the penalty imposed on the company itself under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act w....