2015 (5) TMI 558

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... These applications are filed seeking waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs. 1.16 Crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on Applicant No.(i), Le:(M/s Lakhotia Metalizers Pvt. Ltd.), duty of Rs. 2,38,769/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 & personal penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-under Rule 26 on the Partner Shri Chinmoy Kumar Applicant No.(iv) i.e. M/s A.B. Polymers & Partner shri Chinmoy kumar; personal penalty of Rs. 15.00 lakhs imposed on Applicant No. (ii) i.e Shri Sanjoy Lakhotia; Rs. 10.00 lakhs imposed on Applicant No.(iii) i.e, Shri Jitendra Jadav; Rs. 10.00 lakhs imposed on Applicant No.(v) i.e. Shri Sarad Jhunjhunwala; Rs. 10.00 l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l was under the cover of Central Excise Invoices, in respect of few clearances, there was double entries of certain removals, abatement on account of self-consumption was not considered by the ld.Commissioner and the highest price was taken for quantifying the duty. It is the contention that their duty liability would be reduced to Rs. 43.71 lakhs, on account of the above factors, but the same was not considered by the ld.Adjudicating Commissioner. He submitted that penalty is not imposable on Shri jitendra Jadav as he is concerned only with the quality and supervision of production and has no role to play with the delivery of the goods. 2.2 The ld.Consultant, Shri S. C. Jana, appearing for M/s A. B. Polymers and its Partner, Shri Chinmo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. The Department considered that the materials under these slips were supplied without proper documents to M/s Lakhotia Matelizers Pvt. Ltd., while as the M/s S.R.F.Ltd, to whom the above abbreviation related, was closed since 2005, as such, M/s Purba Flexipack Ltd. or as the case may be its Director, Shri Goenka has no role to play with impugned evasion of duty. 2.5 The ld. Advocate, Shri Ankit Kanoria, appearing for the Applicant, Shri Avinasn Bubna of M/s Arvind Industries, submitted that they did not supply any materials to M/s Lakhotia Metalizers Pvt. Ltd., but they supplied the impugned raw materials to M/s Purba Flexipack Pvt. Ltd. and the same are reflected in their records. However, no proper documents were issued by the Applic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... We find that the case is based on appreciation of evidence produced by both the sides, which would be gone in detail at the time of final disposal of the Appeals. However, from the findings of the ld. Adjudicating Commissioner, it is noted that each of the Applicants has acted and omitted in a manner contributed to the alleged duty evasion. Accordingly, prima-facie, we are of the view that none of the Applicants are able to make out a case for full waiver of the predeposit at this stage. Accordingly, we direct the Applicant No.(i) M/s Lakhotia Metalizers Pvt. Ltd., to deposit 10% of the duty confirmed & Applicant No. (iv) M/s A. B. Polymers to deposit 5%, of the duty confirmed within eight weeks from to-day. On deposit of the said amount,....