Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 227 - CESTAT NEW DELHIClandestine removal - Interest - Penalty - Rule 26 of the CER, 2002 - Held that: - It is on record that such activity of repacking and clearance of oil in metal containers in the guise of empty containers has been detected by the Revenue on the basis of investigations undertaken. The finding of such suppression and clandestine clearance also stands admitted. We find that penalty under Section 11 AC has been imposed for an amount equal to the duty evaded. The appellant-assessee has prayed for setting aside such penalty. In this connection, we note that the penalty under Section 11 AC becomes payable the moment duty demands get confirmed under Section 11 A in cases where the allegation of suppression of facts or fraud stands established. In the present case, we find that Shri S.K. Bansal, who is the director of the appellant-assessee, has involved himself in the evasion of Excise duty by clandestine clearance of the goods. But he might have not been aware of the manner of clandestine removal of the goods. It appears that he was not actively involved in the activities but he cannot deny his responsibility - However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty on Shri S.K. Bansal, Director, from ₹ 2 lakhs to ₹ 50,000/- which will meet the ends of justice - Appeal disposed of.
|