Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (10) TMI 153 - CESTAT, MUMBAIDemand duty - Period of limitation - evidence - Clandestine removal of the goods - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice covers a period of five years. It is difficult to determine the quantity produced in all these years by merely going through electricity bills. The Departments' version is further weakened by the fact that alleged buyers of the goods were not produced for cross examination. The appellants argue that the Department's case is based on presumption and assumptions appears to hold water in the light of the fact that no other evidence exists to establish clandestine removal. On top of it statements of partners of the firms were not recorded and the details of electricity consumption were not even furnished to the appellants. In the light of this it is not possible to uphold the Commissioner's contention that the appellants evaded additional duty of excise on the said quantity. Thus, both on limitation as well as on merits the order fails. Since the demand itself is unsustainable we need hardly to say that penalties are unsustainable. Even otherwise it is a settled legal position that penalties under the provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules cannot imposed when the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, does not provide for penalty. The appeals succeed. The appeals are allowed.
|