9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect to raw material and finished goods found at the time of inspection, whether in absence of any other corroborative evidence of clandestine removal whether the issue of Show Cause Notice is justified for levy of penalty under the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice dated 28/01/2009 in pursuance of inspection in the factory premises on 1st February, 2008 wherein some shortage was found in the stock of finished goods and raw materials as follows: S. No. Description Quantity as per Books (M.T.) Quantity Physically Verified (M.T.) Difference (M.T.) Value Duty (B.E.D.) + E. Cess +H. Ed. Cess 1 M.S. Angles, Channel, T Iron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no case made out of any shortage occurred due to any clandestinely production and/or removal of dutiable goods. There is no corroborative evidence brought on record by the Revenue to support the allegation of clandestine production and removal of the goods. It was also urged that during investigation two statements were recorded but the same were not relied upon, nor made part of the show cause. Thus, it appeared that the Revenue was relying on evidence selectively. Further, in absence of any clandestinely activity found it was urged that no penalty is imposable. It was also contended by the respondent-assessee that the stock valuation was by way of estimation basis and no adverse view and/or inference could be drawn on the basis of such ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly found that the respondent-assessee had cleared excisable goods clandestinely and without cover of Central Excise duty and accordingly there is violation of the provision of the Act and the Rules. Therefore, equal amount of penalty Rs. 11,73,990/- was imposable. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in not enhancing the penalty as prayed by the Revenue and reliance is placed on the ruling of the apex court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors reported at 2008 (231) E.L.T.3(SC), when all the ingredients of section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 were present in the instant case, the quantum of penalty imposed should have been equal to the duty amount confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. 7. Heard both the parties. 8. Havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
