TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing certificate within the stipulated time. As regards the penalty of equivalent amount on the appellant under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 and 27 of the CER 2002, this penalty is unwarranted for the simple reason that the departmental officers were aware that the goods were cleared from the appellant's factory under ARE-3 and CT3. Further certificate from recipient of goods is also categorical that they had received the goods - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/1061/2010 - A/86734/17/SMB - Dated:- 12-4-2017 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Ms Padmavati Patil, Advocate for the appellant Shri Ajay Kumar, Jt. Commissioner (AR) for the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clients to whom they supplied the goods under CT3 under ARE3. It is their submission that, in any case, there cannot be any allegation that the goods were diverted and did not reach the client's premises, as there is no action initiated by the concerned officers having jurisdiction over their client's premises for non-procurement of the goods under CTe3. She submits that the penalties imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 and 27 are unwarranted as there was no intention to clear the goods without payment of duty. 4. Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made, I find that the entire issue is regarding confirmation of demand of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they had received the goods. In my considered view the penalty imposed on the appellant under the stringent provisions of Section 11AC is not warranted as there cannot be any intention to evade payment of duty by suppression, wilful mis-statement, fraud and collusion, which is prime requirement for invoking Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. In my view penalty sought to be imposed under Rule 25 and 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is also incorrect as there is nothing on record to show that appellant has acted in a manner which would render the goods liable for confiscation. In view of this, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
