Case Law Details
Unnati Alloys Pvt Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Shri Jitendra Singh, Learned Counsel along with Ms. Reena Rawat, Advocate appeared for the appellants and he submits that as per the impugned order there is no independent finding against the appellants and the adjudicating authority has directly imposed the penalty without giving any reasoning. Therefore, the order imposing penalty on the appellants is not sustainable. He further submits that penalty on Shri Amit Gupta was imposed solely considering him as the director of M/s. Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd whereas in fact Shri Amit Gupta was not the director during the relevant period. Therefore, entire basis for imposing the penalty on the appellant is demolished. In this regard he referred to the copy of master data extracted from the site of ROC. He pointed out that during the relevant time Shri Nitin Bansal and Deepak Bansal were the directors.
Therefore, the adjudicating authority imposed penalty on the appellant treating him as the director of the Unnati Alloys is not sustainable.
As regard the penalty imposed upon Shri Amit Gupta, I find that Shri Amit Gupta was treated as director of Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd whereas as pointed out by the learned counsel that he was not the director of M/s. Unnnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd during the relevant period. This is a very vital fact and the adjudicating authority has proceeded on a wrong footing.
As per my above discussion and finding, CESTAT set aside the impugned order to the extent of imposition of penalty on the appellants and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order keeping in mind the above observation.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
