2021 (12) TMI 733

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been imposed upon the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.1 A case was booked against M/s. Ramdas Ispat & Metals Pvt. Ltd. (RIMPL) for clandestine clearance of M.S. ingots. One of the recipients of the goods clandestinely cleared is M/s. Rutuja Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (RIPL). 2.2 Appellant is/was one of the directors of RIPL. 2.3 The case against RIMPL was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner vide his order referred to in para 1 above. No other person other than the present appellant has filed any appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 2.4 The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Hence this appeal is filed before this Tribunal. 3.1 This matter has been li....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and during the course of argument. 4.2 While upholding the penalty as imposed by the Additional Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as follows:- "........ The lower authority at para 21 of the impugned order has analyzed the statement of Shri Prashant Shivkumar Chavan, Ex- Accountant of M/s. RIPL who was unequivocal in stating that the appellant in his capacity as Director of M/s. RIPL had paid the consideration in cash to M/s. RIMPL towards clandestinely cleared 1078.11 MT of Ingots. The appellant has neither countered this finding of the lower authority nor produced any evidence to nullify the same. As the penalty has been imposed under Rule 26 of CER, 2002, it is imperative to have a look on the said Rule which is a....