2017 (4) TMI 1553 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine Removal - refusal to sustain levy of penalty - distinction between penalty that could be levied on clandestine removal of goods and penalty that could be imposed for non-maintenance of accounts - HELD THAT - The mere fact that the assessee had not challenged the penalty for non-maintenance of accounts does not ipso facto amounts to an admission as to clandestine removal of goods. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the onus of proof regarding clandestine movement is on the Revenue which attempts to impose a penalty. The decision of the CESTAT affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) is in accordance with law. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal at the instance of the Revenue - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the decision of CESTAT regarding the levy of penalty on alleged clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal maintained the distinction between penalties for clandestine removal and non-maintenance of accounts. The onus of proof for clandestine movement lies with the Revenue. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.