(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Department is in appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 1/10/2010, raising following question of law for our consideration :
[a] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CESTAT was right in law in reducing the personal penalty to Rs.2 lacs from Rs.10 lacs imposed on the respondent under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 ?
Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant and having perused the record, we find that the sole issue arisen in this appeal is with respect to quantum penalty which was imposed by the adjudicating authorities and confirmed by the Appellate Authority but which was reduced to Rs. 2.00 lacs by the Tribunal . The Tribunal in this regard made following observations :
"10.The next issue to be considered is the penalty on the other two appellants namely Shri K.B.Nair and Shri Anil Agarwal. A penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- has been imposed on Shri Anil Agarwal, the partner. In view of the fact that penalty equal to duty which is the maximum leviable under Central Excise Act has been imposed on the appellant firm, the penalty imposed on the partner appears to be harsh. The very fact that RIP was seeking to cross examine Shri Anil Agarwal would show that Shri Anil Agarwal is being treated as a distinct entity firm. Having taken all these factors into account, the penalty on Shri Anil Agarwal is reduced to Rs.2,00,000/- from Rs.10,00,000/- imposed on him. Shir K.B.Nair, General Manager Excise was only an employee and had to work as per the instructions of his position. Taking these factors into account and also taking this fact that as General Manager in-charge of excise he should have aware of all the procedures and law, the penalty is imposable on him but requires to be reduced substantially. Accordingly penalty on Shri K.B.Nair is reduced to Rs.25,000/- only."
Computation of penalty to be imposed being substantially in nature of discretionary exercise of powers, in facts of the present case, we do not find any question of law arising. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed..
{Akil Kureshi, J.} {Ms.Sonia Gokani,J.} bina Top