2010 (12) TMI 994

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o provision, section or rule of law was specified in the order of the Joint Commissioner though the notice and the order clearly and specifically mentions that the penalty is leviable under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002?" 2. Despite service of notice of admission, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. 3. The facts of the case stated briefly are that a show cause notice dated 13-4-2005 came to be issued by the adjudicating authority to M/s. Sagar Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd. as well as to the respondent herein, viz., Shri Prakashchandra Sohanlal Singhvi, Director of M/s. Sagar Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd., inter alia, calling upon them to show cause as to why the penalties should not be impos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der which the penalty had been imposed upon the Director. 5. As can be seen from the order made by the adjudicating authority, the adjudicating authority has recorded a categorical finding of fact to the effect that the respondent is the active Director who is looking after the day to day working of the Unit and has admitted in his statements that the goods were cleared illicitly without payment of duty and was knowingly involved in the evasion of central excise duty. The adjudicating authority, therefore, held that the respondent is liable for penalty under Rule 26 of the Rules. The contention raised on behalf of the respondent that the penalty on the Director cannot be imposed has been turned down by the adjudicating authority on ....