2017 (3) TMI 1212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., who is the repondent and equivalent penalty has also been imposed on them. The impugned order has not imposed any penalty on Shri J C Mansukhani , MD and Shri K G Mantri, Vice President (Commercial), who are also the respondents before us. 1.1. Main issue of the appeal are as under : i) The subject issue relates to imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules on the respondents MD and Vice President (Counsel) of the assessee-company. However, the demand of duty under section 11A(1) is confirmed by the Adjudicating authority that the assessee and the same is not the issue in the present appeal. ii) Commissioner while confirming the demand imposed penalty under Section 11 A of Central Excise Act, 1994 on the assesse; howev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g to evasion of duty of Central Excise to the tune of Rs. 1,28,56,776/- . The respondent Shri J C Mansukhani, holds very senior position of Managing Director in the assessee company namely, M/s Man Industries Ltd. (MIL). It is on record that M/s. MIL has intentionally split the tender in two parts one for bare pipes and the other for PE/CTE coating job. And both the respondents were having the knowledge and were party to this modus operandi of evasion of huge Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,28,56,776/- . 5.1 The impugned order, inter-alia, has imposed equivalent amount of penalty of Rs. 1,28,56,776/- on M/s. MIL, who presently are not party to these proceedings. However, M/s. MIL also had filed an appeal against the same impugned or....