TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... destine removal - merely because there was non-accounting of goods, penalty was technical and inference of clandestine removal was not called for - finding recorded is not shown in any manner to be perverse – Appeal dismissed - 120 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 24-8-2010 - Adarsh Kumar Goel and Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sukhdev Sharma, Standing Counsel, for the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not account for any excisable goods produced or manufactured or stored by him then all such goods shall be liable to confiscation; (iv) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding Commissioner (Appeals) order that penalty could not be imposed upon the director of the firm when penalty was imposed on the firm as Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 provides penalty on person and not on the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been duly accounted for, there is no question of removal of the excess goods clandestinely. Moreover, there was no attempt to clear the goods without payment of duty. As contended by the Appellant the issue is squarely covered by the decision of CESTAT in the case of Indian Steel Wire Products reported as 1995 (78) E.L.T. 298 wherein it has been held that goods are not liable for confiscation for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant submits that once there was violation of rules in maintaining records, inference of clandestine removal was justified and thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were not justified in interfering with the order of the adjudicating authority from raising the amount of duty and penalty. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. Whether in the facts and circumstances, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
