Case Law Details
Pintu Tyagi Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Allahabad)
Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 26 was justified on the proof that there were sufficient evidences adduced to allege clandestine removal and appellant had in his statement recorded under section 14 while giving the details of working of the unit had admitted that he was actively involved in the working of the unit.
Held: Intelligence was received that appellant (Paresh Tyagi) and his brother Pintu Tyagi (Expired on 17.06.2013) were operating a factory located at Ghaziabad and were engaged in casting/ forging (commonly known as “Dhalai”) of LPG stove valve of brass and bar of brass (Saria). Their turnover was more than Rs 10 Crores but they had neither taken registration nor were paying any central excise duty on the excisable goods manufactured and cleared by them. Two relatives of them namely Ashok Tyagi and Gajendra Tyagi residing nearby were also carrying out finishing work of the said forged brass coke valve at the first floor of their residential premises. Acting on the intelligence the factory premises of the appellant and his brother was searched on 23.01.2012. Since appellant was not maintaining any record of production of clearance of the excisable goods manufactured and cleared by them the physical stock of goods totally valued at Rs 22,23,052/- found in the factory premises was verified and seized under the provisions of Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 as made applicable to Central Excise in terms of Section 12 of Central Excise Act, 1944. On the basis of the investigation done and examination of records resumed from the factory and residential premises, it was evident that the unit of Shri Pintu Tyagi and Shri Pradeep Tyagi evaded central excise duty mounting to Rs 1,14,85,955/- [Rs 1,11,51,412/- BED + Rs 2,23,028/- Ed Cess + Rs 1,11,514 SHE cess] which was to be demanded from the unit of Pintu Tyagi and Pradeep Tyagi in terms of Section 11A (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. along with the interest at applicable rate in terms of Section 11AA/11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The unit of Pintu Tyagi and Pradeep Tyagi was also liable for penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was held that when appellant had in his statement recorded under section 14 while giving the details of working of the unit had admitted that he was actively involved in the working of the unit the grounds taken in the appeal which were in nature of alibi did not merit any consideration. His active involvement in the clandestine activities was an admitted fact and penalty imposed on him under Rule 26 was total justified.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT ALLAHABAD ORDER
This appeal is directed against order in original No.33/Commr/C.Ex./ GZB/ 2015-16 dated 29.02.2016 of the Commissioner Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Ghaziabad. By the impugned order following has been held:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
