9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Act, 1944 with interest thereon under Section 11AB of the Act and also imposed penalty equal to duty with option to deposit reduced penalty @ 25% as per proviso to the Section 11AC of the Act. 2. The respondent, M/s. Goetze (India) Limited, are engaged in the manufacture of pistons & Gudgeon Fins falling under Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act. During audit of the records and pursuant to further enquiry it came to light that the appellant had cleared excisable goods worth Rs. 14,91,405/- without payment of duty under cover of documents which according to the Revenue was not valid document in terms of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The respondent were clearing goods through various depots situated at di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of contravention of the rule, but there is no evidence to show that the goods re-cleared were the same goods which were received earlier. There could be chances of clandestine removal of goods, it was pointed out. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that on the receipt of goods in question, the respondent did not take Cenvat credit on the defective goods and therefore there was no occasion to observe the formalities prescribed under Rule 16. Counsel also submitted that the audit party verified the records but there is no allegation that the goods on second clearance were not the same goods which were received earlier. It was submitted that the goods had been received back from depots of the respondent and not fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules or the notification issued thereunder, and therefore for contravention of Rule 16, the respondent could be saddled with penalty. But the liability to penalty under clause (d) is qualified by the words "with intent to evade payment of duty". Thus unless there is evidence showing mens-rea on the part of the manufacturer to evade payment of duty, perhaps no penalty can be imposed in terms of Rule 25(1)(d). In the present case, the allegations against the respondent are more in the realm of suspicion than proof. All said and done, in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the own case of the respondent rendered on identical facts, it would not be appropriate to take a different view particularly in absence of cogent and sufficient materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
