TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olved 1. Four set of parallel invoices 3,95,930/- 2. Credit entries in PLA without deposits 18,50,000/- 3. Private records (Truck Registers) showing clearances 47,32,122/- 4. 6 weighment slips without corresponding Invoices/GRs of truck union 5,27,495/- 5. Removals as per Golu Registers without corresponding invoices 10,75,056/- 6. Fake invoices not forming part of clearances from factory 9,41,257/- 7. Entries made in Ludhiana depot Register, no parallel invoice of factory found 13,72,373/- 8. In guise of defective steel tube cleared Prime steel tube 17,04,002/- 9. Clearances on GRs of Transport Union resumed without invoices 2,37,194/- 10 Clearances of inputs without reversal 63,839/- The show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dt. 27.11.2003. Aggrieved by the said adjudication, the appellants filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its final order dt. 25.06.2004 remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. In the remand order, the party was directed to file reply in two months and the Ld. Commissioner was directed to pass a final order within 4 months from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assets were purchased by M/s S.R. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. The auction purchasers have undertaken to pay all the liabilities of M/s ATPL. 4. Ld. Advocate submitted at the outset that they were arguing only on the personal penalties, which had been imposed against various individuals under Section 209A. He submitted that while penalizing the person the law has to be interpreted strictly. He further contended that the employees are not distinguishable from the company and hence could not be penalized when the company had been subjected to penalty. Ld. Advocate submits that the order dt. 11.08.2005 has been passed ex-parte and opportunity of filing a reply to show cause notice had been closed on the ground that many opportunities had been given. No reply to show cause notice was filed as M/s ATPL was approaching the Settlement Commission and matter was adjudicated on 11.08.2005. So, he pleaded that the principles of natural justice had been violated. He further pleaded that demand has been raised on the basis of some unauthentic entries in the resumed registers and notebooks and there was no further corroborative evidence of clandestine removal. Revenue has not produced the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kot - 2005 (187) ELT 321. 6. Clutch Auto Ltd. Vs. CCE, Faridabad - 2015 (329) ELT 584 (Tri. - Del.). 7. Uni Socks (India) Ltd. Vs. CC Hyderabad-I - 2007 (217) ELT 261 (Tri. - Bang.). As regards personal penalties on the individuals, he submitted that Sh. V.K. Sachdeva admitted preparation of parallel invoices and clandestine removal of the goods. In respect of these invoices, he also admitted all the facts stated by various employees. Sh. N.M. Gupta, AGM (Cost and Account) had admitted all the facts in various statements recorded. He also admitted that credit on TR-6 Challans was taken without deposit of duty as per his directions and also agreed about the preparation of parallel invoices. He submitted that Sh. Major Singh, Asstt. Manager (Liasion), had admitted that the clandestine removal, taking credit in PLA without depositing of money and movements on parallel invoices was done at the direction of Sh. N.M. Gupta. He also admitted that Sh. V.K. Sachdeva, G.M. and Sh. Deepak Singh, MD were having knowledge of all these facts. Sh. Deepak Singh, MD was also aware of taking credit in PLA without depositing of money and he has also seen and signed all the statements of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he argument of the Counsel that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the appellants, cannot be accepted. In fact, the appellants avoided, for the reasons best known to them, to controvert the allegations made in the show cause notice. They cannot be allowed to take advantage on their own and seek quashing of the impugned order on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice. [para 4.2]" Similar view has been taken in the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Rathi Udyog Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut - 2000 (123) ELT 880 (Tribunal) and in the case of M/s Saketh India Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2002 (143) ELT 274 (Del.). 8. The appellants have further submitted that in the impugned order duty has been demanded on the basis of some unauthenticated entries in the resumed registers and notebooks. It is contended that the said entries and statements of various employees are uncorroborated by independent evidences. In this regard, they relied on the following case laws:- a) Rakesh Kumar Garg Vs. CCE, CEAC No.1/2011 decided on 10.12.2015 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. b) Hingora Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Vs. CCE decided by CESTAT, Ahmedaba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbering PAT 8500, PAT 5076, PAT 7725. These trucks are owned by the Noticee and these were used by the Noticee for transportation of the excisable goods manufactured by them, or, for the removal of raw material from the factory. These registers, amongst others, show the movement of these trucks to their depot at Ludhiana for transportation of steel tubes. As per these truck registers, a total quantity of 1444.410 MT ERW Pipes involving duty of Rs. 47,32,122/- had been removed clandestinely without payment of duty. In this context, I find that in his statement dt. 04.10.1999, Sh. A.S. Guleria, Security-in-Charge of the Noticee, admitted that he maintained the said Registers in which the movements of trucks were recorded. It is also observed that the dates on which these trucks moved from the factory alongwith the goods were tallied with the Octroi records of the Noticee as well as with the Octroi slips issued by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and it was found that on the same day or the next day, the Octroi had been paid by the notice, it is also observed that in his statement dt. 07.10.1999, Sh. Madhu Singh, driver of the truck No. PAT 5076 stated that truck was being used by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ware about taking of credit in PLA without deposit of the money in the bank. Such illegal credit was utilized for clearance of goods rendering goods liable to confiscation. Sh. V.K. Sachdeva in his statement had categorically stated that he has discussed everything with Sh. Deepak Singh on financial matters including payment of excise duty and it was also stated by Sh. Sachdeva that whatever was done, it had the permission of Sh. Deepak Singh, MD. Further, Sh. Deepak Singh has also seen and signed all the statements of the employees and agreed with them as true. We also find that none of the statements have ever been retracted. The appellant has relied on the judgment of Jayakrishna Aluminum Ltd. Vs. CC (supra) in a customs matter, where no separate penalty was imposed on the Managing Director. However, it does not deal with penalty under Rule 209 A of Central Excise Rules. Hence it does not help the appellant. On the contrary, the Revenue has relied on the following case laws in which the penalty under Rule 209 A has been upheld on the Managing Director. These cases are of Central Excise and directly applicable to the present case. In the case of Uni Socks (India) Ltd. Vs. CC Hyde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....moval of goods and clearance of goods without payment of duty and fraudulent evasion of central excise duty. Hence, the penalty imposed on him is fully justified. 15. The three appellants (Sr. No. 2,3 & 4) against whom personal penalties have been imposed have argued that no evidence has been brought on record that they had acquired the possession of alleged excisable goods or were in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, selling, concealing or purchasing of alleged excisable goods or dealt with such goods in any other manner or he had the knowledge or reason to believe that the such goods were liable to confiscation, hence, the requirement of Rule 209 A of Central Excise Rules was not fulfilled. In this regard, they have relied upon the case law of Rakesh Kumar Garg Vs. CCE (supra). We find that in the said case, the connection between Sh. Rakesh Garg on whom penalty under Rule 26 was imposed and M/s Amar Jyoti Packer (AJP) and M/s Sonal Food Products could not be established. The Court held that the penal provisions called for strict implementation and in the absence of evidence connecting the appellant with the activity of M/s AJP, the penalty coul....