TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hal, Director of M/s. Signora Texport Pvt. Limited Tex-o-print Private Limited and Shri Sandesh T. Bhingarde, authorised signatory of M/s. Signora Texport Pvt. Limited. However, the penalty imposed on Shri Sandesh T. Bhingarde was reduced by first appellate authority from Rs. 10 Lakh to Rs. 5 Lakh. A penalty of Rs. 8 Lakh was imposed upon Shri Amrit Kumar Chauhan, proprietor of transporter M/s. Chauhan Roadlines, Silvassa. 3. Shri Sunil Agarwal (Advocate) appearing on behalf of all the three appellants argued that the main appellant M/s. Signora Texport Pvt. Limited has paid the entire disputed amount of duty of Rs. 19,64,305/- along with interest and 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. So far as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....porter:- (a) Vijay Transport Co. Limited vs. CCE Daman [2008 (230) ELT 154 (Tri. Ahmd.)] (b) CCE, Coimbatore vs. Al-Matheshwara Lorry Services [2004 (171) ELT 421 (Tri. Chennai) 4. Shri S.K. Mall (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that Shri Ajay Singhal, Director of the appellant company knowingly indulged into the clandestine activities as he admitted the same in his statement. Therefore, no lenient view is required for reducing the penalty upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Regarding imposition of penalty on Shri Sandesh T. Bhingarde, authorised signatory, he argued that as per the language of penal provisions in Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, there is no indication that a person doing illegal act, but for the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....% of the duty amount as penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as per the option given by the adjudicating authority under order in original dated 31.03.2010. The personal penalties imposed by the original adjudicating authority were maintained against the appellants by the first appellate authority except in the case of Shri Sandesh T. Bhingarde where the penalty of Rs.10 Lakh imposed by adjudicating authority was reduced to Rs. 5 Lakh vide Order-in-Appeal dated 11.05.2010. 6. Regarding imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 Lakh imposed upon Shri Ajay S. Singhal, Director the first appellate authority did not think it proper to alter the imposition made by adjudicating authority. It is observed from the statement of Shri Aj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atory is liable to be penalised even if day to day business is controlled by the Director of the company. It is observed from the statement of authorised signatory in the present case that he was very much aware of clandestine activities under taken by the main company and in fact was assisting the main party and its Director in doing clandestine removals of the goods. Under the facts and circumstances and in view of the law laid down by the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hansa Gosalia vs. CCE, Thane-II (supra), penalty is required to be imposed on Shri Sandesh T. Bhingarde under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, looking to the quantum of duty evaded and the penalty imposed upon the Director, it is ordered tha....