9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fine. However, the Tribunal has reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- and penalty from Rs. 90,317/- to Rs. 50,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-appellant is engaged in the manufacture of non-alloys steel products falling under Chapter 72 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 9-2-2005, a team of the officers of the Central Excise visited the factory premises of the assessee-appellant. At that time, Shri Suresh Kumar, Proprietor of the assessee-appellant was present. From the scrutiny of the records produced by him it was revealed that 96.838 MTs (finished goods) and 42.650 MTs Steel Ingots (raw material) was accounted for as balance. After physical verification of raw mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... misreporting of the illiterate labour to the excise clerk. There was no purchase of raw material except for those recorded in the raw material register (P-2). 4. On 1-8-2005, a statutory show cause notice was issued to the assessee-appellant by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Mandi Gobindgarh, as to why the goods valued at Rs. 7,37,845/- be not confiscated and penalty be imposed for the contravention, as per Rule 25 of the Rules (P-3). On 25-4-2006, reply to the show cause notice was filed. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Mandi Gobindgarh adjudicated the matter and on 28-4-2006 the Order-in-Original was passed against the assessee-appellant. The goods valued at Rs. 7,37,845/- were ordered to be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, without looking to the veracity of the statement given on 9-2-2005, the retraction was made. The appellant has categorically being made aware that the statement recorded could be used against him. There is nothing to doubt that the statement recorded under section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 has in the course of judicial proceeding. 5. The appellant when said about different types of stock the authorities should also agreed that there was no difference. But they disagreed with the excess stock of 31.331 MTs of the impugned goods. The appellant submitted that he had purchased input from gray market on payment of cash and that was not accounted for. This clearly established that the practice of purchase from gray market was wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant, Revenue has discharged its onus of proof transparently shifting the burden of proof to the assessee................." 6. After recording the aforementioned categorical findings, the Tribunal proceeded to deal with the issue concerning the quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed against the assessee-appellant. Keeping in view the fact that this was the only detection during the financial year and there being no material on record that the assessee-appellant was involved in clandestine removal in the same financial year i.e. 2004-05, the Tribunal has concluded that it would be justified that the redemption fine is reduced from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-, which is about 20% of the value of the goods. Regarding pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
