9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. [Order]. Heard both sides. 2. The first appellant is a company who is also an assessee under the C.Ex Act for MMF processed and Folding Contractor. The officers consequent to a search of the factory found shortage of 33368 LMT of processed MMF on which duty of Rs. 53389 was alleged to be levied and not paid. Further the officers also found certain paper chits (private re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. The Tribunal remitted the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide denovo on merits, who by the order now impugned confirmed the order except for interest under Section 11AB. Hence these appeals. 3. After hearing both sides and considering the material it is to be found that clandestine removal from the assessees premises on the goods allegedly mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f these chits cannot be upheld as the said demand is only on an assumption and presumption. 4. A perusal of the notice reveals that shortages are detailed in Annexure A while excess removals in Annexure B . In respect of Lot No. 261 and 255 dated 16-2-1996 and 13-2-1996 respectively the department alleges shortage and excess removal which lead to a presumption that the statements as recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a minimum of Rs. 5,000/-. The minimum penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173Q(1) would meet the requirements of law in this case. The penalty under Rule 173Q(1) is reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 5000/- only keeping in mind the quantum of duty demand which is being upheld on the facts as narrated above. 7. As regards the appellant No. 2 on whom penalty has been imposed under Rule 209A there are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
