TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 1017
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 28/02/2008. The issue involved in these appeals are common and, therefore, they are disposed of together. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, on intelligence, the Central Excise officers of Belapur Commissionerate intercepted a truck carrying excisable goods, namely, 150 nos. of MS barrels. The goods and the vehicle were placed under seizure on the reasonable belief the goods were cleared without payment of Central Excise duty. Thereafter, a search was carried out at the premises of the manufacturer and the raw material and the finished goods lying in the factory unaccounted were detained under the reasonable belief that the same were to be removed for clandestine removal. The goods seized from the vehicle and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a penalty of Rs. 47,050/-, under section 11AC of the Central Excise, 1944 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. 4. I impose a personal penalty of Rs. 47,050/- on Mr. Haresh Dharmani, Director of M/s. Maldar Barrels Pvt. Ltd., under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for their involvement in the evasion of Central Excise Duty. 5. I hereby order to confiscation of the goods (Raw material & finished) seized in the factory premises on 15-04/2006 valued at Rs. 14,61,498/- and goods seized on 25-02-2006 valued at Rs. 1,14,748/- under Section 115 of Customs Act, 1962/-. However, I give the option to the assessee to redeem the same on payment of fine Rs. 4,00,000/- (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Del.). 4. The learned JDR reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. So far as penalty on the Director of the company is concerned the learned JDR rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Writer's Food Products vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - II 2009 (242) ELT 381 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein it was held that management would not be aware of the misdemeanours of one of its employees and cannot claim relief as it does not exercise due diligence in discharge of its statutory obligations and further rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gulabchand Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....-Mumbai) wherein it was held that the management cannot close its eyes and cannot afford not to exercise due diligence in checking the mis-deed of their employees, there had not been any proposal or action to penalise any of the employees of the assessee. Therefore, the facts of the case are not relatable to the present case. Moreover, the department failed to produce any evidence regarding any direct involvement of the Director of the company. Therefore, penalty on the Director is not sustainable in law. Duty involved on the goods seized from the vehicle is Rs. 18,727/-. However, penalty imposed is Rs. 4 lakhs which is not as per law. 5.3 So far as penalty under Section 11AC is concerned, no option was given to the appellant at ....