Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Atma Tube Products Ltd vs Cce, Chandigarh on 14 December, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH 160 017 COURT No. I APPEAL Nos. E/4000-4004/2006 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 33-38/CE/2005 dated 11.08.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh]. Date of hearing: 25.04.2017 Date of decision: 14.12.2017 For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) ======================================
1 M/s Atma Tube Products Ltd.
2. Sh. Deepak Singh.
:
Appellant(s)
3. Sh. N.M. Gupta.
4. Sh. V.K. Sachdeva.
VS CCE, Chandigarh.
:
Respondent(s) ====================================== Appearance:
Sh. V.K. Sachdeva and Ms. Poonam Verma, Advocates for the Appellant(s) Sh. Harvinder Singh, AR for the Respondent(s) CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 60139-60142/2017 Per : Devender Singh The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Atma Tube Products Ltd. (ATPL) have manufacturing unit at Derabassi and their depot at Ludhiana. Their factory and Ludhiana Depot were searched by the Central Excise Authority on 21.04.1999. During the search a large number of incriminating documents were recovered. The authorities found the evidence of clandestine removal of finished goods, raw materials and fraudulent credit entries in PLA. A show cause notice dt. 04.04.2000 was issued to appellants for following categories of offences:-
Sr. No. Reason of demand Amount involved
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/-
10Clearances 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 the date of receipt of the order. In the remand proceedings, the main party M/s ATPL did not submit any reply despite being given a number of opportunities. The matter was adjudicated and in the impugned order dt. 11.08.2005, the Ld. adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,10,41,745/- and imposed equivalent penalty on the M/s ATPL, Dera Bassi. He further disallowed the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 63,839/- and imposed the penalty of Rs. 63,839/- on M/s ATPL, Dera Bassi. Interest on the aforesaid amounts of demand was also confirmed. Further, penalty of 15,00,000/- each was imposed on M/s ATPL under Rule 173Q and on Sh. Deepak Singh, Managing Director of M/s ATPL under Rule 209A of the Rules. Further, penalties were also imposed on the following persons under Rule 209 A of Central Excise Rules:-
1. Sh. V.K. Sachdeva, GM (Finance), - Rs. 2,00,000/-
2. Sh. N.M. Gupta, AGM (Costs & Accounts)- Rs. 2,00,000/-
3. Sh. Major Singh, AM (Liasion), - Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. Sh. M.S. Bawa, Sr. Branch Manager Rs. 1,00,000/-
The present set of appeals have been filed by M/s ATPL, Sh. Deepak Singh, Sh. V.K. Sachdeva, GM (Finance) and Sh. N.M. Gupta, AGM. Since all the appeals have emanated from the same adjudication order, they are taken up together. After impugned order dt. 11.08.2005 was passed, the M/s ATPL approached the Settlement Commission. However, their application was dismissed by the Settlement Commission on the ground that the adjudication order has already been passed. Against the said order of the settlement Commission, M/s ATPL approached the Honble High Court and the Honble Supreme Court but their plea were not allowed and M/s ATPL were advised to file its statutory appeal. On 01.12.2006, the appellant filed this appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay.
3. At the start of hearing, the Revenue brought on record that M/s ATPL created a lien vide lien deed dt. 03.03.2007 crediting lien of all the assets of the company for the amount of duty and penalties pending recovery from them. Meantime, IFCI, a secured creditor of M/s ATPL took the physical possession of factory premises of M/s ATPL with all the immovable or movable assets for recovery of loan. Auction for the assets of M/s ATPL was successful and immovable assets of M/s ATPL were purchased by M/s Tarun Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and moveable 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 corroborative evidences of purchase of raw material and who received the goods without payment of duty. As for the penalty on Sh. V.K. Sachdeva, it was contended that he was General Manager (Finance) at the time and was not involved in the day to day operations of the company. He further contended that Sh. Sh. V.K. Sachdeva did not acquire the possession of excisable goods, nor was he concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing of the alleged excisable goods. Hence, the penalty on Sh. Sh. V.K. Sachdeva was based on presumptions and assumptions. He relied on the following case laws:-
1. Rakesh kumar Garg Vs. CCE, CEAC No. 1/2011 decided on 10.12.2015.
2. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs CCE decided on 13.12.2006.
3. ZU Alvi Vs. CCE 2000(11) ELT 69 (Tri. Del.)
4. Jayakrishna Aluminum Ltd. Vs. CC 2005 (187) ELT 234 (Tri. Chennai) He also submitted that in the previous adjudication order of the Commissioner, the penalty imposed was less and in the present order subsequent to the remand order of the Tribunal the penalty has been enhanced, without any change in the circumstances and without assigning any reasons which is against the settled law that in the remand proceedings the amount of penalty imposed earlier cannot be exceeded. Ld. Advocate also submitted that Section 11AC cannot be invoked as the removal of goods relates to 1993 and part of the period is prior to Section 11AC coming into effect. Same pleas were also taken in respect of other appellant employees, who had been penalized.
5. Ld. AR described the modus operandi of the clandestine clearances and incriminating evidence against the appellants. He argued that the appellants were given so many opportunities to defend themselves and despite there being a specific direction of the Tribunal to file reply in two months, the appellants did not complete the process and avoided filing any reply. As sufficient opportunities were given, there was no violation of natural justice. In this regard, he relied on the following judgments:-
1. Rathi Udyog Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut 2000 (123) ELT 880 (Tribunal).
2. Saketh India Limited Vs. UOI 2002 (143) ELT 274 (Del.).
3. Patel Widecom India Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi 2004 (170) ELT 16 (Tri. Del.).
4. Patel Widecom India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 2015 (321) ELT A153 (All.)
5. M.N.Shah Vs. CCE, Rajkot 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 employees and agreed with them as true. Ld. AR emphasized that none of these statements had been retracted.
6. Heard the parties and perused the records.
7. We find that the first contention of the appellants is that the impugned order was passed ex-parte. Contention is that since they were approaching Settlement Commission, their reply to the show cause notice could not be filed by them and the impugned order was passed on the same date on 11.08.2005, the date on which M/s ATPL had already made its reference before the Settlement Commission. Hence, it is argued that there was violation of principles of natural justice. We find that the show cause notice was issued on 04.04.2000 and the same was first adjudicated on 27.11.2003. The adjudication order was remanded by Honble Tribunal vide Final Order dt. 25.06.2004 for fresh adjudication with a specific direction to the party to file reply in two months and to Ld. Commissioner to pass the final order within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the reply. In the remand proceedings, the appellants did not submit any reply despite repeated reminders and did not attend personal hearing despite being given a number of opportunities. We find that no reply was filed by the appellants either within the stipulated period or even till the date of adjudication. The opportunities given by the adjudicating authority have been narrated in the Paragraph 28-32 and 35 of the adjudication order. Hence, we find that sufficient chances were given to the appellants to present their case but the appellants did not avail those opportunities and hence we find that there is no violation of natural justice by the adjudicating authority. In this regard, we find that this Tribunal has held that in such circumstances, natural justice is not violated. In the case of M/s Patel Widecom India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (ICD), TKD, New Delhi 2004 (170) ELT 16 (Tri. - Del.), this Tribunal held as under:-
Natural justice - Opportunity of hearing - Reply to show cause notice when not filed by appellant in spite of ample opportunity afforded to them, principles of natural justice not violated. - The appellant did not file reply to the show cause notice in spite of ample opportunity afforded to them. The memo sent to them by registered post for filing reply was received by them with the remarks Refused to accept. Therefore the 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 Honble High Court of Delhi.
b) Hingora Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Vs. CCE decided by CESTAT, Ahmedabad vide order dt. 01.12.2014.
We find that demand has been confirmed on the basis of series of evidences, which include incriminating documents recovered in the course of simultaneous search of their factory premises at Dera Bassi and Ludhiana depot. The statements of the concerned persons including that of the Management Executives and Managing Director Sh. Deepak Singh recorded on various dates, the records obtained from other agencies such as Bank and octroi etc. We also find that while recording the statements, the entries found in the recovered documents were confronted to the concerned persons and the same have been admitted by them. None of the documents which were recovered were disputed by the appellants and none of the statements have been retracted. It is undisputed that the appellants had taken credit of Rs. 18.5 lacs in their PLA during 26.09.1997 to 19.12.1997 on different dates without making deposits of any amount in the bank and utilized such illegal credit in PLA for clearance of excisable goods. This shows the wanton and deliberate violation of the law done repeatedly over a period of time. Further, there were parallel invoices recovered from the factory and also from the Ludhiana depot, which clearly shows that the goods under these invoices have been cleared clandestinely without payment of duty. Ld. Commissioner has dealt with this aspect in Para 42 and 43 of impugned order.
9. The appellants had also evaded duty which has been worked out on the basis of details found in the 6 weighment slip books recovered from their factory but not found in the corresponding invoices. These weighment slips were the authentic record of the noticee and maintained by the security guards, whose statements along with the statement of Sh. A.S. Guleria, confirmed the authenticity of these slips and the modus operandi of clandestine removal. This was further corroborated by G.Rs of M/s Bassi Mubarakpur Truck Operator Union, Dera Bassi and other private records of the noticee like Golu Note Books, Truck Register etc which have not been disputed by the appellants. We also find that the Ld. Commissioner has elaborately dealt with the clandestine removal in respect of 3 trucks in Para 40 of his order, which is reproduced below:-
40. The evaded duty amount worked out in Ann. G is based on the records maintained by the Noticee in respect of three trucks numbering 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 the Noticee for transportation of steel tubes from their factory to Ludhiana Depot. Thus, apart from the details found in the Truck Movement register there is corroborating evidence establishing the clandestine removal without payment of excise duty as none of the evidence adduced has been disputed, the allegation of clandestine removal of the goods detailed in Annexure C is held as established.
10. We also find that there is sufficient corroborative evidence in respect of the confirmation of demands which the Ld. Commissioner has described in detail in Para 41.1 and 41.2 and Para 44 of his order.
11. In view of the foregoing, the Department has been able to successfully prove the allegations of clandestine removal and evasion of duty done in various ways by the appellants (as summarized in Para 2) as also the taking of illegal credit and illegal utilization of such credit by the appellants. It is also clear that the appellants were resorting to such fraudulent clearances repeatedly and systematically over a long period of time in complete disregard of the provisions Central Excise Act and the Rules thereunder. In view of the foregoing, the order of the Ld. Commissioner confirming the demand of Rs. 1,10,41,745/- for the extended period alongwith interest and imposing penalties on the appellant M/s ATPL is upheld. The denial of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 63,839/- as well as interest and penalty of the same amount are upheld. Considering the systematic and planned suppression of production, clandestine removal of goods and clearance of the goods without payment of duty, penalties under Section 11AC of the Act and Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q are correctly imposed. The appellants have raised a plea that Section 11AC cannot be invoked as clandestine removal partly relates to 1993 i.e. prior to Section 11AC coming into the Act. We find that show cause notice in these appeals was issued on 04.04.2000. It has been clarified by the CBEC vide Letter F. No. 354/118/96-TRU dt. 06.01.1997 that the provisions of Section 11AC would apply where show cause notices have been issued on or after the enactment of Finance Bill 1996. In view of the same, this plea of the appellants is not tenable.
12. As for the penalty on Sh. Deepak Singh, M.D., we find that he was wholly looking after Administration, Finance and Commercial operations of the company. As per his statement, he was aware 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 Hyderabad-I (supra), the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Rule 209 A on the Managing Director though the quantum was reduced. In the case of Clutch Auto Ltd. Vs. CCE, Faridabad (supra) also, the Tribunal upheld the penalty against the Managing Director. Hence, we are inclined to follow these judgments, which are directly applicable to the present case. In facts of this case, we find that the Managing Director was fully responsible for the fraud, which was played on the Revenue in various ways. Hence, separate penalty on Managing Director is fully justified. The penalty on Sh. Deepak Singh, M.D. is therefore upheld. 13. As for the penalty on Sh. VK Sachdeva, General Manager (Finance), he has admitted preparing of parallel invoices and clandestine removal of steel pipes on these invoices without payment of duty. He also agreed to deposit duty on these clearances. He also admitted that all the facts stated by various employees including Sh. N.M. Gupta, AGM, Sh. Major Singh, Manager (Liasion) and Sh. Suresh Chawla, Clerk in their various statements. We find that overall superintendence of excise matters rested with him and he was the fully aware of the law and implications of its violation. He has willfully connived with the management. His role in the fraud has been proven and hence the penalty on Sh. V.K. Sachdeva has been correctly imposed.
14. As for the penalty on Sh. N.M. Gupta, AGM (cost and accounts), we find that Sh. Suresh Chawla, dispatch clerk in his statements had admitted that parallel invoices were prepared and TR-6 credit were taken as per the directions of Sh. Major Singh, Manager. Sh. Major Singh has admitted in his statements about the clandestine removals done in various ways, taking of credit in PLA without deposit of money, movement of goods on parallel invoices etc and that he was reporting to and working as per the directions of Sh. N.M. Gupta, AGM, who was looking after day to day excise matters. Sh. N.M. Gupta, AGM himself admitted all the facts in his statements. He admitted that the credit was taken on TR-6 challans without deposit of any duty as per his directions and also agreed about the preparation or parallel invoices. He also admitted that Sh. V.K. Sachdeva, GM and Sh. Deepak Singh, MD were in the knowledge of all these facts. We thus find that Sh. N.M. Gupta, AGM has fully abetted in all the activities leading to clandestine removal 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 could not be imposed. On the contrary in the present case, the involvement of Sh. Deepak Singh, Sh. V.K. Sachdeva and Sh. N.M. Gupta is complete and all pervasive as brought out hereinbefore. They were not only in the knowledge of clandestine removal of goods on the parallel invoices, fraudulent clearance of goods on the basis of credit taken without payment of duty in the PLA and other modus operandi summarized in Para 2 of this order, they actively abetted such removal of goods. Hence, the facts and circumstances being totally different, the said case law does not help the appellants.
16. The appellants have also relied on the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs CCE (supra). In the said Single Bench order, it was held that it was requirement of the authorities to prove that the officer has knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation. The Tribunal had taken the view that the officers had reversed/debited the amount, which proved that they have no knowledge of Central Excise Laws. In the present appeal, on the contrary, no such plea has been taken and the fact that parallel invoices, misuse of PLA facility to take illegal credit, and evasion through numerous modus operandi was done shows that the appellants had deep understanding of excise law and rules. Hence, the said case law does not help the appellants.
17. In the other case laws relied upon by the appellant, ZU Alvi Vs. CCE (supra), we find that this case law is also Single Member Bench and hence not binding. Even on facts the ZU Alvi was an employee of BHEL and the penalty was imposed on him under Rule 209 A. It was held that he had no dealings with the contraband goods except in his official capacity as an employee. Rule 209 A applies only to a person who deals with the contraband articles, not as a manufacturer, hence, he could not be penalized under Rule 209 A. As held by the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Garg Vs. CCE (supra) what is required is that in order to levy the penalty, it will have to be satisfactorily proved that the persons concerned was actually involved in the transporting/removing or clearing of excisable goods and had the knowledge that such goods were liable to confiscation. In the present case, the appellant employees were very much aware that the goods were liable to confiscation and what they were doing had implications of contravention of the laws; still, they willfully and systematically connived with the management in clandestine removal of goods through different modus operandi. In this regard, we place reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in matter of M.N. Shah Vs. CCE, Rajkot 2005 (187) ELT (Tri. Mumbai) in which penalty on the Manager (Roadways) under Rule 209A was upheld keeping in view the role played by him.
18. In view of the foregoing, the penalties on the Managing Director, Sh. Deepak Singh, Sh. V.K. Sachdeva and Sh. N.M. Gupta, are upheld.
19. Two of the appellants, Sh. V.K. Sachdeva and Sh. N.M. Gupta, have also taken the plea that in their case the penalties in the impugned order are higher than the earlier order of the adjudicating authority. They argued that the same is not justified when there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case and no reasoning has been given for enhancement of the penalty. We find that the penalty in the case of Sh. N.M. Gupta, has indeed been enhanced was 50,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- and in the case of Sh. V.K. Sachdeva penalty has been enhanced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is settled position of law that in the remand proceedings the amount of penalty cannot be enhanced especially when there are no new facts or evidence to justify that. Besides, in impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner has given no reason or basis to justify such enhancement. In view of the above, the penalty imposed on Sh. N.M. Gupta is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- and penalty imposed on Sh. V.K. Sachdeva is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-
20. In the result, the appeals of M/s ATPL & Sh. Deepak Singh are dismissed. Appeals of Sh. N.M. Gupta and Sh. V.K. Sachdeva are partly allowed to the extent of reduction of respective penalties as mentioned in Para 19 of this order.
21. Appeals are disposed of in above terms.
(Order pronounced in the Court on 14/12/2017) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) Devender Singh Member (Technical) NS 17 Appeal No. E/4000-4004/2006-CHD