2012 (9) TMI 1046 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the grant of relief to the appellant without proper examination of the law on clandestine removal, the imposition of penalty, and the value of retraction in the eyes of the law.

Grant of Relief without Proper Examination of Law on Clandestine Removal:
The appellate authority granted relief to the appellant without examining the law relating to clandestine removal. The judgment mentions that fiscal proceedings are governed by the principles of preponderance of probability, and once the shortage was established, it should hold against the appellant to confirm the duty levied. The conclusion of the appellate authority to waive the penalty on flimsy grounds was considered erroneous. The judgment cites cases where relief to an evader is considered a bonus, indicating that the relief granted was not in accordance with the law.

Imposition of Penalty and Value of Retraction:
A notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why the penalty imposed by the Adjudication Order should not be sustained. The appellant's reply was required to be filed before the Tribunal for consideration. The appellant's contention was to be considered only upon receipt of the reply to the show cause notice. The judgment highlights that the reasoning given by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was not in accordance with the law, leading to the issuance of the show cause notice.

Conclusion:
The judgment addresses the improper grant of relief without proper examination of the law on clandestine removal, the imposition of penalty, and the value of retraction in the eyes of the law. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal principles and procedures in fiscal proceedings, penalty imposition, and consideration of appellant's contentions.