2017 (11) TMI 215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the Director, Revenue has filed the present two appeals. 2. After hearing both the sides and on going through the impugned order, it is find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the allegation of clandestine removal of goods worth Rs. 1,41,27,730/-. However, he has observed that the respondents are entitled to small scale exemption upto a limit of Rs. One Crore during the relevant period, in terms of Notification No. 8/2003-CE and has accordingly directed the respondents to pay duty on the balance amount of Rs. 41,27,730/-. 3. As such, a short question required to be decided in the present appeals of the Revenue is, as to whether the benefit of small scale exemption is required to be extended to the assessee, when the final produ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....epared by Ld. Member (Judicial), I write a separate order. 7. While I agree with the Ld. Member (Judicial) on the issue of allowing the benefit of small scale exemption even when there is finding of clandestine removal, on the issue of imposition of penalty on Shri Pritpal Singh, the Director, I am not in agreement with the view expressed by the Ld. Member (Judicial). The adjudicating authority has imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the Director under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. I find that the charge of clandestine removal without any kind of records and bills against the appellants is clearly proven. Admittedly, the Director of the company, Shri Pritpal Singh was looking after the overall affairs of the company and thus was th....