VINOD KUMAR GUPTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant - proprietor of M/s Asim Enterprises and partner of M/s Makhan Lal Vinod Kumar is assailing order dated 16.9.2009 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, upholding the levy of penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and directing the appellant - proprietor of M/s Asim Enterprises and partner of M/s Makhan Lal Vinod Kumar to pay penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- . Undisputedly, brief facts of the present case inter alia are that appellant is proprietor of M/s Asim Enterprises, and partner of M/s Makhan Lal Vinod Kumar, registered dealers; the Central Excise Officers searched the business premises of M/s Asian Alloys Ltd. on 12.1.2001 and conducted thorough investigation; M/s Asian Alloys Ltd. availed credit on the basis of invoices issued by the registered dealers and washer manufacturing units during the period from 1.4.2000 to 31.7.2001; Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 3,79,64,978/- and imposed penalty of equal amount on M/s Asian Alloys Ltd. along with interest and also imposed penalties on various registered dealers and washer manufacturing units. Penalty of Rs. 8285894/- was imposed on M/s Asim Enterprises and penalty of Rs. 485107/was imposed on M/s Makhan Lal Vinod Kumar-; a further penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant being proprietor of M/s Asim Enterprises and partner of M/s Makhan Lal Vinod Kumar. Undisputedly, imposition of penalty on M/s Asian Alloys Ltd., the proprietorship firm, has attained finality and likewise imposition of penalty on M/s Makhan Lal Vinod Kumar, of which appellant is partner, has also attained finality.

(2.) Learned Tribunal in an appeal filed by the appellant-proprietor of the firm, having observed that appellant was settling the accounts of other registered dealers/washer manufacturing units, who had supplied invoices to M/s Asian Alloys Ltd. without any physical movement of the goods, confirmed the imposition of penalty on the appellant-proprietor of the firm, however, reduced it to Rs. 10,00,000/- from Rs. 50,00,000/- .

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, appellant has preferred this statutory appeal.