TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 865
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & Service Tax, Mumbai wherein penalty of Rs. 18,00,000/- and 9,00,000/- were imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellants, Shri. Manoj Pyarelal Mittal and Shri. Yegesh Kumar Mittal respectively for aiding and abating evasion of Central Excise duty of Rs. 88,79,846/- by the Company, M/s. Simco Paints Industries Pvt. Ltd., wherein present appellants are Managing Director and Manager respectively. The fact of the case is that Company, M/s. Simco Paints Industries Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture of paints. On investigation by the DGCEI Officers it is revealed that manufacture company has not accounted for production of paints and clear the same without payment of duty of Rs. 88,79,846/- during the period of Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n before adjudicating authority was not allowed therefore order passed ex-parte without following the principle of natural justice is not sustainable and accordingly appellants deserve for unconditional stay order. He submits that penalty under Rule 26 was imposed without satisfying the essential ingredients such as goods should be confiscated. He submits that in the present case goods were not confiscated therefore penalty under Rule 26 is not sustainable. He placed reliance on the following judgments. (a) [2008(229) ELT 80(Tri-Mum)-Air Carrying Corporation P. Ltd. V/s. CCE, Thane-I (b) [2013(298) ELT(86(Tri- Ahmd.)-Yamuna Machines works Pvt. Ltd. V/s. CCE, Vapi (c) [2008(222) ELT(408(Tri-Mumbai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 27/5/2014 and directed company to make pre-deposit of 50% of the total duty evaded. In the said order all the issues such as merit of the case and principle of natural justice have been carefully considered and passed a very detailed and reasoned order and this Tribunal found a prima facie case of evasion of duty. As regard the role of the present appellants in the case, it is observed that Shri. Manoj Pyarelal Mittal, Managing Director of the Company deliberately with a planned modus-operandi by preparing parallel Central Excise invoices have evaded excise duty. As regard the role of Shri. Yogesh Kumar Mittal, he has knowingly helped the company and Shri. Manoj Pyarelal Mittal by returning the parallel invoices so that to destroy the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be seen that the penalty under Rule 26(i) is imposable on the person who has knowledge that the goods is liable for confiscation. In the present case, while clearance of excisable goods clandestinely without payment of excise duty, both the appellants were having full knowledge that goods are liable for duty and clearance of the same without payment of duty make goods liable for confiscation. Therefore act of the appellants are more than sufficient to invoke Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Since this Tribunal has already taken prima facie view as regard evasion of excise duty against the company in the it's stay order dated 27/5/201, the argument of Ld. Counsel on merit, principle of natural justice of no help. We have also considere....