2016 (1) TMI 269

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Boxes' classifiable under sub-heading No. 4819.12 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 21.08.2002 the Central Excise Officers visited the assessee factory and found that they had wrongly availed the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2000-CE dated 01.03.2001 by not clubbing the clearance value of their Banglore unit with the clearance value of Daman unit. 3. A Show Cause Notice dated 15.12.2005 was issued proposing demand of duty alongwith interest and to impose penalty on the assessee and to impose penalty of Shri Sachin Modi, Director and Shri Parimal Naik, Factory Manager of the assessee company. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 3,99,684.00 alongwith interest and impos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I vs Akash Fashion Prints Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (239) E.L.T. 439 (Guj.) . He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case ofVadhera Luminaries vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I 2004 (166) E.L.T. 211 (Tri.-Del.). It is contended that the penalty was imposed on the assessee company under Section 11 AC and therefore, penalty on the Director is not proper. 5. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the appellant had not disclosed their Bangalore Unit to the Department, and it is a clear case of suppressio....