9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was intercepted and it was found that non duty had been paid on the goods being carried in the tempo. It is thus, clear that the respondent was trying to remove the goods in the tempo clandestinely. We are of the considered opinion that penalty can only be imposed on the goods which were removed from the premises and intercepted in the tempo. Thus, the respondent is liable to pay penalty on the goods which were removed in the tempo from the factory premises and the same were intercepted - However, the goods which were not removed from the factory premises and were still lying, although some of the invoices had not been entered in the Register, no penalty would be leviable as no clandestine removal had taken place. - 143 of 2008 - - - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich involved a total duty of Rs.2,41,460/-. On the basis of the aforementioned shortages, a show cause notice was issued which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority vide order Annexure A-1. The appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, in appeal filed before the Tribunal, the orders passed by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner have been partly set aside and it has been held that there has been no material on the basis of which it could have transpired that there was any clandestine removal of the goods and the penalty imposed was set aside. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, counsel for the appellant has contended that the fact that clandestine removal of the goods stands fully established a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Adjudicating Authority under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944?" A perusal of the aforementioned facts clearly shows that a tempo carrying the finished product manufactured by the respondent was intercepted and it was found that non duty had been paid on the goods being carried in the tempo. It is thus, clear that the respondent was trying to remove the goods in the tempo clandestinely. We are of the considered opinion that penalty can only be imposed on the goods which were removed from the premises and intercepted in the tempo. Thus, the respondent is liable to pay penalty on the goods which were removed in the tempo from the factory premises and the same were intercepted. However, the goods which were not removed from the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
