2013 (6) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Respondent. ORDER Whether the CESTAT was justified in confirming the penalty levied under Section 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is the question raised in this appeal. 2. The appellants as also Dipesh Gosalia, son of Hansa Gosalia were directors of a company known as Gosalia Emultech Private Limited. On receiving information that the company had contravened various provision....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o Rs. 5,66,524.61. While confirming the aforesaid duty demand with interest and penalty on the company, the adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on each of the appellants herein under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. Appeal filed by the appellants against imposition of penalty under Rule 209A was dismissed by the CESTAT vide order dated 28th September 2010. Ch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in his statement had stated that the credit was availed on the inputs without receiving such inputs as per the directions of Shri Dipesh Gosalia, son of Hansa Gosalia. The finding of fact recorded by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the CESTAT is that the appellants were aware of the developments taking place in the company and, therefore, the appellants are liable for penalty. The argume....