Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2010 (9) TMI 953

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 91,680/- against M/s. Yamuna Machines Works Pvt. Ltd., on the findings of illicit removal of goods. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the said appellant in terms of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules. In addition, penalty of Rs. 91,680/- was imposed in terms of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on Shri Chandubhai Shiroya, Director of the manufacturing unit. 4. On appeal filed against above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 91,680/- along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty equal to the duty amount under Section 11AC and Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules. He also upheld imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of passing of the order confirming demand of duty, the penalty shall stand reduced to 25% of the duty amount. Tribunal in the case of Swati Chemicals & others as reported in 2009 (248) E.L.T. 421 (T) = 2009 (94) RLT 684 (CESTAT), has held that where no option stand given by the original adjudicating authority to the above effect, the same is required to be extended by appellate forum and if the appellants deposits the dues along with 25% of penalty within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the order by appellate authority, the penalty shall stand reduced to that extent. In the present case, I find that apart from the fact that no such option was given by the lower authority, the appellant had, in fact, deposited an amount of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....de the penalty under said Rule, in remand proceedings when the said order was only challenged by Revenue for reduction of penalty under Section 11AC. As such, I confirm the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed under Rule 25. 9. As the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon the director was set aside by the Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has remanded the matter on tax appeal filed by Revenue with directions to re-hear the same and to record reasons for setting aside the penalty on the director. 19. On going through the impugned order of Assistant Commissioner, I find that the penalties stand imposed on the director under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 by observing that the director is actively concerned himself in co....