9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1368 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - 249.90 MT of ingot - submission of the appellant is that the demand cannot be confirmed on the appellant only on the basis of 3rd party documents - Held that - it is clear that the entire quantum of ingots figuring in the records of M/s. Allianz have been admitted to have been received in the premises in the appellant. It is settled position of law what is admitted is not required to be proved with mathematical precision. The penalty of ₹ 10 lakh imposed on Sunil Bansal, Director under Rule 26 is on the higher side, Penalty reduced to 50% - appeal allowed in part.
Issues: Duty demand on MS ingots received without paying excise duty, penalty imposed on Managing Director
Analysis: 1. Duty Demand on MS Ingots: The case involved appeals against the Order-in-Original related to the demand for excise duty on MS ingots received without paying duty during the period of July 2008 to October 2008. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the records of the appellant regarding the receipt of MS ingots. The appellant contested the duty demand on a specific quantity of 249.90 MT of MS ingots, claiming it was never received. However, the Department justified the duty demand based on matching entries in the supplier's register, even if not recorded in the appellant's register. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand for the quantity of 995.7 MT, which was admitted by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that what is admitted need not be proved with precision, affirming the duty demand for the acknowledged quantity. 2. Penalty Imposed on Managing Director: The penalty of ?10 lakh imposed on the Director of the appellant under Rule 26 was contested as being on the higher side. The Tribunal, considering the principle of equity and good conscience, modified the penalty amount to 50% of the original sum, reducing it to ?5,00,000. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the duty demand but deemed the penalty excessive, providing relief to the appellant by reducing the penalty amount. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, sustaining the duty demand while modifying the penalty imposed on the Director. The decision was pronounced on 8th November 2017.
|
