Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1343 - CESTAT, DELHIClandestine Removal - Shortages of goods - Proof - Clandestine removal has been accepted by the party inasmuch as they have not contested the duty demanded. - It is fairly evident that this respondent is not an assessee who accounts all goods manufactured. Therefore there is a burden on them to prove that the excess raw material was due to bonafide mistake - The respondent has failed to discharge this burden - Decided against the assessee. Penalty - that the penalty to be imposed under Rule 25 need not be equal to the duty evaded. Therefore, I do not want to interfere with the decision of Commissioner (Appeals) in reducing the penalty from 30,000/- to Rs.10,000/- Redemption fine - Redemption fine cannot be correlated to the duty payable on the inputs because there is no case that such duty has not been paid -redemption fine, normally the guideline is the profit that can accrue to the party due to the proposed clandestine activity should be taken as basis. This would mean that the duty that can be evaded by manufacturing goods clandestinely and removing without payment of duty has to be the reasonable basis - This duty will be more than the duty paid on inputs - find that the redemption fine imposed in the order-in-original is maintainable.
|