TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctured by the appellant. That brought out the appellants as well as the buyer of such goods to levy. The buyer did not rule out appellant's involvement in the unaccounted clearances. They became witness against appellant by virtue of their dealing with such goods of appellant. The appellant also could not bring out any evidence to lead before the investigation as well as the authorities below, to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of duty automatically. So also there shall be not be levy of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Both the Directors of the appellant-Company faced penalty of ₹ 95,678/- each and they are not liable to such penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 since there was no incriminating documents recovered in the course of investigation showing their involvem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not bring out any evidence to lead before the investigation as well as the authorities below, to prove that the goods covered by the chits did not belong to it. When the chits recovered during investigation were not disowned by the appellants, the elementary principle of jurisprudence that possessions follow title brought the appellants to the rigour of law. 3. When the chits as above were in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. 4. At this juncture, submission of learned counsel is that at least penalty of ₹ 95,768/- imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC may be reduced to 25% of the duty element. It may be stated that concession in penalty is permissible if the case falls under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. But present case is not of that nature. Section 11A(2) permits concession wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
