Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 315 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - Shortage of stock - demand of duty with penalty - Held that: - the department has not taken full pains to make fool proof case against the assessee. The whole case is made mainly on the mere statement of the Director of the Company - the charge of clandestine removal by an assessee is itself a serious charge which needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Revenue is required to go to the customers to whom the said non-duty paid goods were cleared. When there is no record of such clearances in any form (loose slips or printed record) found, department’s charge is mere statement. Penalty u/s 11AC of the CEA - Held that: - the Revenue fails to offer any substantial evidence against the appellants to prove fraud, collusion, willful misstatement with intent to evade duty - the present case appears to be covered by Tribunal’s decision in the case of Ranjan Processors vs. CCE, Jaipur II [2009 (9) TMI 867 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where the penalty imposed under section 11AC was modified and a reduced penalty was imposed u/r 27 of CER, 2002 - the penalty of of ₹ 71,893/- imposed on the appellant-assessee is reduced to a penalty of ₹ 5,000/-. Imposition of Penalty on Shri Surendra Kumar Bhura, Director of the assessee company - Held that: - when there are no malafides established in case of the appellant Director, penalty under Rule 26 in his case cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
|