2011 (7) TMI 736

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ars falling under Chapter 72 of CETA 1985.  Aftermath of a case booked against one M/s. Amar Ispat manufacturer of MS ingots who suppressed the production of in records and cleared the same without payment of duty to various Rolling Mills including the appellant M/s Air Carrying Corporation (I) P. Ltd. (ACC for short) the proceedings were initiated against ACC and its director on the ground that they purchased the MS ingots without documents.  Statement of director Shri Manoj Arya was recorded wherein he admitted that they received 300 MT of MS ingots cleared without payment of duty by Amar Ispat during 2004-05 upto August 2005 and they cleared the same to various parties without payment of Central Excise duty. Accordingly, a show....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l submitted that penalty imposed on the director is on higher side. Therefore, lenient view may be taken. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on these decisions: 1. CCE Surat II vs. Gopal Fibres P. Ltd. 2010 (256) ELT 10 (Guj) 2. CCE, Surat I vs. Bhagyoday Silk Industries 2010 (262) ELT 248 (Guj) 3. CCE Rohtak vs. J.R. Fabrics P. Ltd. 2009 (238) ELT 209 (P&H) 4. K.P. Pouches P. Ltd. vs. UOI 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Del). 5. Ld. JDR submitted that the appellants have not paid the interest therefore they are not eligible for the benefit under proviso to Section 11AC. With regard to penalty on the director, ld. JDR submitted that penalty under Rule 25 is subject to section 11AC and it is independent of provisions of Rule 26 and....