TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ursuance to SCN dated 14.5.04 confirmed demand of duty on M/s. Amar Jyoti Packers along with interest and imposed penalties on the said firm and 4 others including the present appellant. The Commissioner held that M/s. Amar Jyoti Packers have indulged in suppression of production and clandestine removal of such suppressed production and that four persons including the present appellant have played major roles in the said clandestine activities. The present appellant was authorised signatory and accountant of M/s. Amar Jyoti Packers against whom demand has been confirmed. In the present proceedings we are concerned only with the appeal of the present appellant. 4.1 Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the main party M/s. Amar Jy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. Learned Jt. CDR on the other hand, submits that the appellants as authorised signatory was fully involved in the manipulation right from the stage of procurement of unaccounted raw materials and clandestine removal of the final products. He adds that, for imposition of penalty on a person under Rule 209 (A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002, there is no need that the goods should be physically dealt with by the said person. In this regard, he relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Writer#s Food Product [ 2009 (242) ELT 381 (Tri-Mum)] . 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The Commissioner vide impugned order demanded duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... received or issued for production in form IV register. Commissioner has thus, held that the appellant was involved in clandestine handling and procurement of raw materials. He has also taken note of the fact that the job of mixing the raw materials, a trade secret of pan masala and gutka, was done by the appellant. Taking note of the statements of appellant and the statements of Shri Mukesh K Gautam, Dinesh Kumar and Shri Rajender Singh, he has held that the appellant was aware of removal of finished goods with bills and without bills. He has also taken note of the fact that entire activities relating to production, maintenance of quality, payment of salary etc. was mainly looked after by the appellant. These were not merely the work of an....