Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 898 - AT - Central ExcisePenalty u/r 26 - clandestine removal - Held that: - Since adequate evidence regarding the job work activity and payment of duty on the final product were produced by the appellant No. 1, the same cannot be discarded and adjudged demands cannot be confirmed against it - Since there is no clandestine removal of goods from the factory of the appellant No. 1, personal penalty imposed on the appellant No. 2 u/r 26 of the CER, 2002 cannot be sustained. Penalty on appellant No. 3 - Section 28 (2B) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that: - Since the appellant No. 1, who was the job worker for the appellant No. 3 has confirmed that it had received the goods and used for slitting purpose, it cannot be said that non-fulfilment of the conditions of N/N. 52/2003-CUS., dated 31/03/2003 is attributable to fraud, collusion, separation of facts, with intent to evade payments of duty - since the appellant No. 3 had deposited the duty foregone on account of import of the goods and also deposited the appropriate interest, the benefit of Section 28 (2B) ibid should be available, for non-imposition of penalty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|