Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 339 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - excess stock of finished goods - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that: - the authorities below have recorded the statement of the Director, the appellant No. 2 herein, stating that he has accepted that the excess found stock was kept in the factory premises, with an intention to remove the same clandestinely, without payment of Central Excise duty. However, on verification of the statement recorded from Shri Sunil Kedia on 1.8.2009, I find that no such statements were furnished by him before the Central Excise officers. Thus, I am surprised as to how the authorities below have recorded such fact, which is not emanating from the statement recorded by the officers of the department on the spot from the Director of the company. In absence of any credible evidence regarding the intention to remove the goods in clandestine manner, the imposition of redemption fine and penalties cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Confiscation of excisable goods - imposition of fine/penalty under Rule 25 - Held that: - the law is well settled that in absence of the ingredients like suppression, or wilful mis-statement as provided under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1994, the provisions of Rule 25 ibid cannot be invoked. This Tribunal in the case of Industrial Thermo Pack [2015 (3) TMI 1145 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] under identical set of facts of non-maintenance of proper records, has set aside the redemption fine and penalty, holding that there was no deliberate or mala fide intention to remove the goods clandestinely. Penalty on the Director u/r 26 - Held that: - since the goods cannot be confiscated, there is no question of imposition of penalty on the Director of the assessee-appellant under Rule 26 ibid. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|