TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one M/s. Shree Saibaba Copper Private Limited (100% EOU) on the allegation and findings that the duty on the imported raw material was diverted by them in the open market instead of consuming the same for the proposed use. The said M/s. Shree Saibaba Copper Pvt. Limited is not before us. The two appellants Shri Digvijaysingh Jhala and Shri Hemendra J. Shah are against the imposition of penalties of Rs. One Crore upon them, in terms of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The other two appellants M/s. Mehul Roadways and M/s. Leelam Roadways had challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs. one lakh imposed by the same impugned order of Commissioner. 2. Arguing on the appeals, Ld. Advocate Shri V. Sridharan submits that both the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem on the ground that at the time of executing B-17 bonds by the 100% EOU in the year 2002, when the Company came into existence, the solvency certificate given along with the said B-17 bond was incorrect, inasmuch as the same reflected the solvency status of Shri Jhala instead of showing the solvency of the Company. He submits that Shri Jhala in his statement has clarified that such solvency certificate annexed with B-17 bond was given by the Company without his consent and knowledge and he was not aware of the same. He has not appended his signatures on any of the document. He also regretted for giving false information by the Company but clarified that he was not aware of the same. In any case, submits the Ld. Advocate that the Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing with the said retraction has held the same to be an after thought. He submits that if that be so, the statement dated 4-2-2005 given by Shri Ashish Aggarwal completely exonerates the presence of the appellants, and is in his favour, in which case, no penalty can be justifiably imposed upon the appellants. 5. After going through the findings of the Commissioner and the various portions of the statements of the different persons to which out attention has been drawn during the course of hearing, we find that Commissioner has not disputed the resignation of the said two appellants from the Directorship of the unit w.e.f. 17-2-2003. Admittedly, when the 100% EOU was raided by DRI in August 2004, the appellant had no relation with the ....