2014 (11) TMI 620

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 2002 in the facts and circumstances of the present case? (b)     Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- imposed on the Appellants under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002? (c)     Any other question of law that this Hon'ble Court may frame considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. Heard learned counsel Ms. Madhu Jain for ld. counsel Mr. Gautam Gadhvi who fervently argued for on behalf of the appellant that imposition of penalty on appellant Shri Sanjay Deora who is the Director of the Firm is contrary to the well laid down principle of law inasmuch as the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sampat Heavy Engineering Limited, both engaged in the manufacture and clearance of "aluminium conductors" and "Machines for drawing wire/rods". All the three factories are situated in the same compound and are availing the Cenvat credit facility on the inputs used. 6. By the officers of (DGCEL) respondent-Department, all the three factories were searched on 17th June, 2005 and the business premises of some of the buyers also were simultaneously searched, on having noticed clandestine removal of excisable goods and thereby noticing evasion of the Central Excise duty. It was also alleged of fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit on the strength of cenventable invoices collected from the register, Central Excise Dealers without physicall....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... these rules, shall be liable to penalty not exceeding the duty of such goods or Rs. 10,000/- whichever is greater. 10.1 It is apparent from the very tenor of the rule that penalty is imposable if excisable goods have been rendered liable for confiscation under the Act, or the Central Excise Rules. The person who acquires possession of such goods, or in any manner concerned with any of the activity like transporting, removing, concealing etc. in dealing with such goods which he would have a reason to believe were liable to confiscation, would render himself liable for penalty. 10.2 It was contended retrospectively by the learned counsel Mr. Jain that the show cause notice does not speak of confiscation of excisable goods, and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red Engineer's report on probable production capacity of SAPL. The Tribunal found substance in the findings of the Commissioner that the actual production accounted by the appellant was more than the Chartered Engineers certified production and therefore such certificate of Chartered Engineer was not found trustworthiness and was rejected. 11. The Tribunal also noted that as was done in the Order-in-Original, for every industry and buyer there was necessity to individually examine the quantity of goods clandestinely removed and holding that the clearances shown in the private record could not be possibly relating to clandestine removal, as for demanding the full quantity as per the work sheet attached to the show cause notice, the pri....