TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 904
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act. 3. I impose personal penalty of Rs. 53,17,908/- upon Dr A S Bindra, Managing Director under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules." 2.1 The appellant before us was managing director for company name P.M.L Industries Limited, Derabassi, Patiala, 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in the manufacture and export under bond of "Boneless Buffalo Meat" falling under Chapter 02 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also engaged in the manufacture of bye products namely "Bone Meat Meal", "Animal Fat", "Food Pipes", "O S Penis" and "Horns & Hooves". They were clearing Bone Meat Meal in Domestic Tariff Area on payment of duty leviable as per proviso to Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 after availing the benefit of exemption as per Notification No. 13/98-CE dated 02.06.1998. 2.2 Proceedings were initiated against them vide by three show cause notices dated 27.05.2003, 18.07.2003, 18.11.2003 alleging under valuation of the goods cleared by them namely Bone Meat Meal in domestic tariff area thereby demanding duty of Rs. 45,46,960/-, 6,04,844/- and 1,66,104/- respectively. Show Cause Notices also demanded interest on the duties short paid as p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2010 (258) E.L.T. (Tri.- Del.). • Circular no. 933/23/2010-CX/ dated 16.08.2010, • Since the demand has been confirmed, contrary to the established procedure of determination of classification and also under a wrong provision for determination of under valuation. The same could not have been sustained and accordingly the penalties imposed on the P.M.L or his Managing Director (appellant) cannot be sustained. • In absence of proposal in confiscation of finished goods, penalty under Rule, 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be sustained as has been held in following cases : • Premier Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur [2010 (360) E.L.T. 109 (Tri.-All.)] • Atul Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Pune-II [2007 (210) E.L.T. 681 (Tri.-Mumbai)] • In case of Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Pune-2007 (211) E.L.T. 73 (Tri.- Mumbai), penalties imposed on the employee of company is set aside as the provisions of Rule 209A under which it has been imposed do not get attracted for the reason that no goods hve been held liable for confiscation. 5.1 The Ld. Authoriz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) against them in respect of short of payment of duty and penalties imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 have attained finality and cannot be challenged or decided in the appeal of the managing director of the company. 6.3 However, we observe that when in his appeal and throughout the proceedings appellant has not disputed that the company was clearing the goods after determining the classification of goods and payment of duty as determined by them in after availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 13/98-CE, the submission made by the learned Consultant to the effect that lower authorities have not followed the settled procedure of assessment i.e. determining classification etc. cannot be detrimental to the proceedings. At the relevant time the unit namely M/s P M L Industries was working under the scheme of self assessment as introduced in the year 1997 and paying the duty after determining the classification and value of the goods. Hence if the Revenue Authorities have in the present proceedings not determined the classification separately it can be concluded that department do not dispute the classificati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Floor, Sector 34A Chandigarh taken on rent by the noticee. Shri Dharamveer, Company Secretary of the noticee in his statement dated 4.03.2003 stated that there were 5 directors on the board of the company namely Dr. A.S. Bindra, Managing director (Share holding about 11%) Mrs. Kanwarjit Kaur W/o Dr. A.S. Bindra (Share holding about 6%), Ms. Divya Bindra D/o Dr A.S. Bindra (Share holding about 1% ) Maj. Gen. G.S. Randhawa (Retd.) and Sukhbir Singh Grewal (Both having nil share holding). He stated that Dr. A.S. Bindra was authorised by board of directors to look after the day to day affairs of Hitech All the records of Hitech were being maintained by the notice as there was no employee on the roll of Hitech. Even Sh. R.C. Bhalla, who had been authorised by Dr. A.S. was drawing his salary from the noticee. All the matters including financial and policy decisions of both the firms were being influenced/ dealt/taken by Dr. A.S. Bindra. Both the companies were transferring funds to each other and no interest on amount of advances was being paid. 6.5 There cannot be any dispute in this appeal that duty has been short paid in respect of the clearances made by M/s. P.M.L indus....