2001 (10) TMI 605

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... applications arise from 2 appeals, one filed by the assessee-company and the other by one of its Directors. The appeals are against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming a demand of duty by upholding the order of the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority had confirmed a demand of duty Rs. 1,17,436/- against the company under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... clandestine removal of goods was based on a presumption. The adjudicating authority presumed clandestine removal on the basis that the applicants product namely marble slab was a highly evasion-prone commodity. The lower appellate authority simply presumed clandestine removal on the basis of shortage. Neither of the authorities had found any evidence of clandestine removal to support the findin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmodity, the presumption raised by the Departmental authorities cannot be faulted. In this manner, the DR opposes the present applications. He also points out that there is no plea of financial hardships in the applications. 4. I have considered the submissions. The amount of duty was paid by the assessee before issue of the show cause notice. The mandatory penalty was imposed under Section 11AC .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X