Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Bindu S. Mehta vs Commissisoner Of Central Excise on 25 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(121)ELT281(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot dated 28-1-1993 vide which penalty of 4 lakhs each was imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules on the appellants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants Smt. Purnima K. Sharma and Smt. Bindu S. Mehta constituted a partnership firm. M/s. Aum Cosmetics and Shri Sandeep J. Mehta was Attorney of M/s. Aum Cosmetics. M/s. Aum Cosmetics were engaged in the manufacture of Telecom powder. During the period 1985-86 and 1986-87, it was found that M/s. Aum Cosmetics shown less clearances than the actual clearance. A show cause notice was issued to M/s. Aum Cosmetics and the present appellants. After adjudication a demand of Rs. 8,22,812 was confirmed on the M/s. Aum Cosmetics and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed on M/s. Aum Cosmetics and penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules were imposed on the present appellants. 1
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Smt. Bindu S. Mehta and Smt. Purnima K. Sharma submits that both appellants were partners of M/s. Aum Cosmetics and there is no evidence on record to show that they have knowledge or reasonable belief that the goods in question were liable to confiscation. He submits that even no enquiries were made from these appellants. He submits that as both the appellants have no knowledge of the clearances of the goods without payment of duty. Hence, they cannot be held liable under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. For this, he relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok India Engineering Works v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 659 (Tribunal) and in the case of Standard Surfactants Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, reported in 1998 (103) E.L.T. 675 (Tribunal).
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Sandeep J. Mehta submits that he was only the Power of Attorney of the Firm and there is no evidence on record to show that by evading payment of duty, he was any way benefited. He further submits that even the demand against the firm M/s. Aum Cosmetics is time bared. Therefore, he prays that the appeal be allowed.
5. Learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that Shri Sandeep J. Mehta, in his statement before the Revenue officials under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, admitted that he was raising invoices under his signatures or under the signatures of his employees. Total amount mentioned in the invoices were recovered from the customers and copies of RT12 Returns were also signed by him and that all the clearances shown to their customers were not recorded in their RT-12 Returns. He, therefore, submits that the appeal be dismissed.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The contention of the appellants Smt. Bindu S. Mehta and Smt. Purnima K. Sharma is that there is no evidence on record to show that they had the knowledge or reasonable belief about the goods being liable to confiscation. They were only partners of the firm and day to day work of the firm was conducted by Shri Sandeep J. Mehta. The Tribunal in the case of Standard Surfactants Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, reported in 1998 (103) E.L.T. 675 (Tribunal) held that in absence of any evidence that the noticee on personal knowledge or reasonable belief are liable to confiscation the penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 are not sustainable. This evidence is not on record in the present case. Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Tribunal, we find that penalty imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on Smt. Bindu S. Mehta and Smt. Purnima K. Sharma are not sustainable.
8. In respect of Shri Sandeep J. Mehta, there is evidence on record by way of his admission that he was preparing the satutory record and was not showing the actual clearances in the statutory records. Therefore, he was knowingly clearing the goods to the customers and collecting excise duty which was not deposited with the Revenue Department. Therefore, we find no merit in his appeal. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs will meet the ends of justice.
9. Consequentially, the appeals filed by Smt. Bindu S. Mehta and Smt. Purnima K. Sharma are allowed and appeal filed by Shri Sandeep J. Mehta is disposed of as indicated above.