9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal, of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has questioned the dropping of the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- confirmed on the respondents under Rule 173Q, by the adjudicating authority, while confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 49,193/-, on account of shortage of the raw material and finished goods. 2. The respondents have filed the cross objections wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar Singla, Manager of the respondents who was associated in the verification of stock, by the officers, pleaded that their accountant was part time employee and he could not attend the record, due to illness. But his explanation, in my view, was rightly rejected by the adjudicating authority for want of any evidence to corroborate the same. In fact, shortage of raw materials and finished goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been also referred by the respondents in the cross objections has dropped the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondents which was imposed by the adjudicating authority, on them. But in my view, the ratio of law down in those cases is not attracted to the case of the respondents. In those cases, keeping in view facts and circumstances brought on record, the penalty was dropped. The intention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of any plausible explanation, it can be safely inferred that the respondents deliberately evaded payment of duty. The subsequent deposit of duty by them at the time of visit of the Central Excise Officers, was made with a view to avoid penal action. The imposition of the penalty, in a case shortage of raw materials and the finished goods, on account of clandestine removal, is mandatory under Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
