9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite issue of notice. 2. After hearing learned D.R. and on perusal of the records, it is seen that on 29-10-2004 Central Excise officers visited the respondents factory. The said officers detected shortage of finished goods involving central excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,61,658/-. Shri Mohinder Paul Jain, partner of the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shortage and stated that the goods were cleared without payment of duty on cash sale basis. So, it is a case of clandestine removal of the goods. Hence, penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is warranted. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties on the ground that the department has not been able to collect or produce any corroborative evidence to prove clandestine removal of the goods. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be 25% of duty (i.e. Rs. 40,414/-). As such, penalty imposed on the respondent No. 1, partnership firm, should be Rs. 40,414/- which they have already deposited. Regarding imposition of penalty on the partner, I find that the respondent No. 2 Shri Mohinder Paul Jain, partner of the respondent-firm I observe that he admitted that he has sold the goods on cash sale basis in the open market, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
