Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 766 - CESTAT NEW DELHIClandestine removal - confiscation - demand calculated based upon the loose sheets of private records as found for the period 2006-07 to 16.12.2010 - Held that: - It is undisputed that the said note book was recovered from the appellant’s premises and the Director was confronted with the said note book and it was admitted as being maintained for clandestinely removed goods. We have no hesitation to uphold the demand of duty on the goods clandestinely removal as recorded in the private note book as the appellant has no explanation for such clandestinely removed goods nor are they able to show that the duty liability has been discharged - demand upheld. Confiscation - finished goods which were found during visit of the officers remained unaccounted in statutory book - Held that: - the appellant has been clearing the goods clandestinely without recording the same in the statutory books as indicated by us herein above while upholding the demand of duty on clandestine gods. In our view, the adjudicating authority was correct in confiscating the finished goods which were found unrecorded and redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation is also appropriate. We find no reason to interfere with such reasonable order passed by the adjudicating authority on the confiscation of the unaccounted goods. As regards the demand of duty confirmed , due to difference in balance sheet figure, we find that the appellant had filed balance sheet certified by the Chartered Accountant, it is found that There is also no reconciliation to come to the conclusion that the figures shown as sales figure in the loose sheet of balance sheet recovered from the appellant premises are correct sale figure. We also note that, on mere perusal of the said loose sheets which were photocopies, there is some gaps and omissions which could not be answered by the officers of the Department, for example, there is total mismatch of sales figures indicated to the manufacturing expenses recorded. In view of foregoing , we are of the view that in the absence of any corroborative evidence to support the claim that sales figure in which appears in loose sheets of balance sheets are acceptable, we are of the opinion that demand on this count needs to be set aside. The demand of duty on this count is set aside. Penalty u/r 26 of CER, 2002 on Director - Held that: - on the face of the fact that he has accepted that there was clandestine removed goods as recorded in the private note book, we uphold penalty is imposable but reduce the same to to ₹ 3 lakhs. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
|