TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Present for the Appellant : Shri A K Prasad, Shri Pradeep Jain, Advocate's Present for the Respondent: Shri Bhagwat Dayal, Authorised Representative ORDER All these appeals arise out of the same impugned order and hence they are being disposed of together. 2. Pursuant to specific information that two trucks with specific registration numbers were carrying non-duty paid gutka, one of the trucks was intercepted by the officers of Central Excise, Jodhpur on National Highway No. 8 at Bharuch, at the night of 31.03.2008. In follow up action, the officers intercepted the other truck on 02.04.2008, at the Daulatabad Ghat and also identified the godown where the second truck had already off-loaded its cargo. In further follow up ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing or selling excisable goods which Sunil Sarogi had known or had reasons to believe are liable for confiscation; (ii) It is true that Sunil Sarogi was the Director of Shree Raj Exports Pvt Ltd. but he was not the executive director and had no active role to play in activities of the company. Arun Joshi, Director of the firm was his friend and on his request he had consented to be the director of the firm and his role was only on papers; (iii) On 09.07.2003, he was appointed as Director but he resigned on 07.09.2007. Therefore, he had no role as Director after this period. The seizure in this case were made much later in 2008; (iv) In paragraph 41.10 of the im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submissions. Therefore, the Commissioner should have accepted that Sunil Sarogi had resigned and he should not have imposed any penalty on him. Sunil Sarogi was not the Director of the company at the time of its incorporation in 2000 and became the Director only on papers on 09.07.2003; (d) Having accepted that Sunil Sarogi was only a dummy Director, the Commissioner still imposed penalty of Rs. 1 crore on Sunil Sarogi without any basis. A large number of statements were recorded during investigation but nothing in any of the statements impleaded Sunil Sarogi and both the statements of Sunil Sarogi were exculpatory. Sunil Sarogi never received any remuneration or commission from the company nor did he have any share in it. In view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive role to play in the company and had only agreed on his name as a Director on papers except of his friendship with the owner of the firm. It is impossible to conceive of any role which Sunil Sarogi may have had in possessing, transporting etc., or dealing with in any manner with the gutka which was clandestinely manufactured and removed and which was held liable for confiscation. Detailed investigations were conducted by the department and several statements were recorded during the course of the investigation. Nothing in these pointed to any role of Sunil Sarogi in the manufacture and clearance of gutka in this company either legally or illegally. Under these circumstances, the penalty imposed on Sunil Sarogi under Rule 26 needs to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mohammad Bashir 10,000/- 25. E/50347/2017 Abdul Sattar 10,000/- 26. E/50363/2017 Mohd Salim 10,000/- 27. E/50549/2017 Abdul Hamid 10,000/- 10. These appellants are assailing the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 on them on the following grounds: (i) These appellants were transporters of goods and were involved in transporting the allegedly clandestinely removed Pan Masala; (ii) Imposition of penalty under rule 26 on appellants is not proper and correct or legal; (iii) The appellants were only involved in booking for various transporting companies or were owners of the trucks or drivers of the trucks in which the Gutka was transported; (iv) The appellants were ....