9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the learned Asst. Commissioner, Sankrail Division. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has upheld the duty demand of Rs. 35,98,637/- along with interest, for the period October 2013 to March 2014, however, he has set aside the penalty amount imposed by the lower authority equivalent to the duty amount under u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Pursuant to the search operations undertaken by the officers of DGCEI at appellant's premises, Show Cause Notice dated 08.07.2015 was issued to raise demand of central excise duty on the charge of clandestine removal on the basis of certain loose documents and print outs, weighment slips, etc.. In adjudication, the demand of duty and penalty as proposed in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authority and prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant Company be rejected being devoid of any merit. 6. Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the appeal records. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned Commissioner in para No. 10 has observed as below:- "In the present matter, I observe that the Department has not adduced any corroborative evidence to support the charge of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods. The lower authority has drawn inferences from the recovery of the said documents and shortage found during joint physical stock verification but without any independent material and si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdered for appropriation of Rs. 40,00,000/- already paid by the appellant no. 1 towards liability of duty and interest, which needs no interference, in view of the above discussion. But, in view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, High Courts and the Tribunal and in the absence of any single concrete positive and tangible evidence of clandestine removal by way of suppression of facts by the appellant no. 1 with the intent to evade duty, I find that the lower authority's order for imposition of penalty of Rs. 35,98,637/- against the appellant no. 1 under Section 11AC of the said Act is not sustainable." 8. On perusal of the entire order carefully, I do not find any observation to justify upholding the duty demand, as has been claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
