2018 (8) TMI 161

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Altaf, Assistant Commissioner, A.R. for the respondent, we find that the appellant was director of M/s Ram Shiv Industries Ltd, which was engaged in manufacture of M.S.Bars. A case was made out against M/s Ram Shiv Industries Ltd. for evasion of duty for the period of 2003 onwards and demand of duty of Rs. 2.44 crore was confirmed against them on the findings of clandestine removal. It is seen that there was a direction by the Tribunal to the said M/s Ram Shiv industries Ltd. to deposit amount of Rs. 30 lakhs as a condition of hearing of their appeal which direction they did not comply with and their appeal was subsequently dismissed for non-compliance. Hence the appeal of the present appellant who had complied with the Tribunal's directio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....facturing unit has not deposited the duty amount so availed by them and has subsequently sold the factory thus making the Revenue unable to recover the amounts. He also submits that though in the eyes of the law company is a separate legal entity but the profits made by the company on illegal activities stands enjoyed by the director only, especially when there is enough evidences on record to show that such clandestine removal were under the guidance of the director. The fact that the appellant had sold the factory is indicative of their malafide inasmuch as in the absence of any assets of the company the recovery of huge demand of duty cannot be made. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of appeal. 5. After hearing both the sides, we fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... invocation of the same, there should be sufficient evidences with regard to guilty frame of the mind of the noticee. 6. We have seen the provisions of Rule 26 which provide for imposition of penalty on any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner deals with any excisable goods which he knows or has reasons to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these Rules. As such a reading of the said rule clearly leads us to hold that the said Rule can be invoked when a person deals with the excisable goods in the manner as mentioned in the said Rules and has reasons to believe that the goods are liable to conf....