Rajeev Mardia Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Rajeev Mardia vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 28, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38894

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/38894
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: R Abichandani, M T K.C.
Decided On: Apr 28, 2005
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajeev Mardia

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(187)ELT275TriDel

Excerpt

.....goods by showing the factory gate prices much lower than the prices at which the goods were actually sold has been established against the main company, m/s. mardia steel ltd. shri rajeev mardia being the managing director of the company cannot be unaware of the pricing pattern and sale of the goods at a higher price without payment of appropriate duty. therefore, he had full knowledge about the liability of confiscation of the goods also, which were being under-valued.therefore, penalty was correctly imposed on him.4. on examining the record, we find that the adjudicating authority has came to a conclusion that shri rajeev mardia in the capacity of his placement cannot claim that he was not aware of the fact that there was no sales to independent buyer at factory gate and goods sold at depot were charged to higher price as compared to assessable value, resulting in failure to discharge proper duty on the goods. therefore, he had every knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscate. therefore, the penalty was correctly imposed under section 209a of central excise act. we find that duty demand, in this case, was rs. 72,61,528/-and a penalty of rs. 1 lakh was imposed on shri rajeev mardia. he has not given any other acceptable reason for staying the recovery of the penalty. we, therefore, find no reason to stay the penalty imposed on shri rajeev mardia. he is directed to pre-deposit the entire amount of penalty of rs. 1 lakh within a period of 4 weeks from today and report compliance by 2nd june, 2005.

Full Judgment

1. Despite notice, the applicant has not appeared for hearing.

Therefore, the stay application is being decided on the basis of the evidence available on record.

2. Shri Rajeev Mardia, applicant has requested for staying the recovery of penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed on him on the ground that there was no allegation against him that he had any reasons to believe or any knowledge that any goods were liable to confiscation or that he was concerned or dealt with any such goods.

3. Shri S.M. Tata, Id. SDR pleaded that the applicant was the Managing Director of M/s. Mardia Steel Ltd. The charge of under-valuing the goods by showing the factory gate prices much lower than the prices at which the goods were actually sold has been established against the main company, M/s. Mardia Steel Ltd. Shri Rajeev Mardia being the Managing Director of the Company cannot be unaware of the pricing pattern and sale of the goods at a higher price without payment of appropriate duty. Therefore, he had full knowledge about the liability of confiscation of the goods also, which were being under-valued.

Therefore, penalty was correctly imposed on him.

4. On examining the record, we find that the adjudicating authority has came to a conclusion that Shri Rajeev Mardia in the capacity of his placement cannot claim that he was not aware of the fact that there was no sales to independent buyer at factory gate and goods sold at depot were charged to higher price as compared to assessable value, resulting in failure to discharge proper duty on the goods. Therefore, he had every knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscate. Therefore, the penalty was correctly imposed under Section 209A of Central Excise Act. We find that duty demand, in this case, was Rs. 72,61,528/-and a penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh was imposed on Shri Rajeev Mardia. He has not given any other acceptable reason for staying the recovery of the penalty. We, therefore, find no reason to stay the penalty imposed on Shri Rajeev Mardia. He is directed to pre-deposit the entire amount of penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh within a period of 4 weeks from today and report compliance by 2nd June, 2005.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Rajeev Mardia vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject MRTP Same Judge R Abichandani, M T K.C.