Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 184 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - Shortages in the stock of finished goods in all raw-material detected - demand of duty & penalty levied - Held that:- There is no statement accepting clandestine removal of the goods by any authorized representative. Also there is no evidence of clandestine removal of the goods. Thus as decided in Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Minakshi Castings (2011 (8) TMI 896 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) mere shortages of finished stock, without any other independent evidence, cannot lead to inference of clandestine removal. Also see L.M. Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad (2010 (10) TMI 316 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) & Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata v. Hanuman Udyog (2007 (9) TMI 148 - CESTAT KOLKATA). As such, the appellate authority was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed upon the assessee inasmuch as the demand of duty was not being contested by the respondent, he rightly confirmed the same. Confirmation of demand in respect of furnance oil - As the Revenue is not disputing the fact of procurement of the same and its use in the boiler on trial basis. Inasmuch as furnace oil stand procured by the appellant, the credit of duty paid on the same was rightly availed by the respondent. No infirmity is found in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - in favour of assessee.
|