Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 525 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal of goods - confiscation u/r 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and imposition of penalty on Managing Director of the company - appropriation of bank guarantee - whether the appellant had duly accounted for the excess finished goods alleged to have been found during the time of search? - Held that: - The confiscation is ordered on the presumption that appellant would have removed the goods without payment of duty. In fact, the appellant has paid duty on the goods as per the duty determined. In the case of Quippo energy Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE&ST,Ahmd. [2015 (10) TMI 1726 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] the Tribunal held that if goods are not available, the same cannot be confiscated. In the instant case, the goods were provisionally released and appellant cleared them by paying duty. Therefore, I hold that the confiscation and the imposition of redemption fine is without any legal basis and therefore, liable to be set aside. The statement of Shri Shiva Kanth shows that the appellant was indulging in clandestine removal of goods. This evidence together with the admitted fact that the appellant had not accounted the stock of Cefrozil and Cefdinir in the RG 1 register, would attract the provisions under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, in this regard the penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- imposed on Shri M. N.Reddy Managing Director is on the higher side. A penalty of ₹ 1 lakh in my view would meet the ends of justice. I set aside the order of confiscation. The penalty imposed on Shri M.N.Reddy is reduced to ₹ 1,00,000/-. The impugned order is modified to the above extent - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee.
|