2014 (4) TMI 380

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assed on the Waiver-cum-Stay Application, under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act by which the Tribunal has partly allowed the Application and has asked the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.7.05 Lakhs. The brief facts, giving rise to the present Appeal, are that the appellant is a Director of M/s. Ram Shiv Industries Limited. For the relevant period in dispute a sum of Rs. 2.44 Crores have been demanded by the impugned order, dated 18th September, 2008, passed by the Commissioner. Further, a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs have been demanded towards penalty imposed on the appellant, being the Director of the Company. Against the order of the Commissioner, both the Company as well as the appellant filed Appeals alongwith Waiver-cum-Stay Applicati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder his control and he was responsible for day-to-day work of the party and other two Directors were not responsible for the same, but on the very next day, he retracted from the statement and, therefore, on the basis of the earlier statement, the appellant cannot be held responsible and having regard to the income and the financial condition of the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have waived the requirement of pre deposit. We have considered submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. We do not find any substance in the arguments pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The Commissioner has imposed the penalty after recording the following findings: "I have considered the point of the advocate and of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d also if received without payment of duty are liable to confiscation under the Central Excise Act, 1944. All the ingredients, which are required to penalize a person after proving his guilt, are sufficiently available in the case and only the director of the party may be held responsible for all the omission and lapses occurred in the manufactory premises. The motto behind receiving the non-duty paid goods i.e. M.S. Ingots from M/s L.Kannt Paper Mills Ltd. directly or through RRCPL and RRI through brokers, is very clear. The director wanted to receive the non-duty paid goods so that the final products manufactured from this non duty paid inputs may also be cleared clandestinely without payment of duty. He wanted to be benefited on the cost....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e officers under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Admittal of all the shortcomings, are sufficient to prove the active participation of the director in all the illegal activities, being committed in the manufactory premises of the RSIL. I, therefore, find him to be penalized under the provisions of rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules as he violated the provisions knowingly for his own benefit." The findings recorded by the Commissioner shows that at the initial stage, the appellant has admitted that the manufacturing premises was under his control and he was responsible for day-to-day work of the party. Though the appellant has retracted from his earlier statement, but that may be subject matter of adjudication by the Tribunal....