2014 (4) TMI 183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ER Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: After hearing both sides we find that vide his impugned order the Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of Rs.2.44 crores against Ram Shiv Industries Ltd. and penalty of Rs.20 lakhs on the present applicant who is Director of M/s Ram Shiv Industries. The stay petitions filed by the appellants as also by the Director were taken up for disposal and M/s Ram Shiv Ind....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.20 lakhs imposed upon the applicant in terms of the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Ongoing through the impugned order we find that allegation against the manufacturing unit was clandestine manufacture and removal of their final product i.e. bars and rods, which findings are based upon the statements of various persons recorded at the stage of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nconditional stay. 5. Countering the arguments, ld. A.R. appearing for Revenue submits that apart from the fact that company has not deposited even a single penny till date and further submits that there is lot of evidence available on record to establish involvement of the present applicant. He submits that appellant's first statement was though retracted but subsequently again he had admitted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... only. As such it cannot be said that Director is not a position to deposit the amount. He also submits that the fact that the appellant have sold his factory is indicative of their mala fide inasmuch as in the absence of any assets of the company, the recovery of huge demand cannot be made and director should not be allowed to escape without depositing anything towards penalty. 6. After apprec....