9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar case of improper maintenance of accounts - However, the charge of attempted clandestine removal cannot be upheld as there was no evidence about such attempt and that there was no evidence of clandestine removal in the past relied upon - while upholding confiscation, the quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee. - E/2756/2007-SM(BR) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicated that while calculating the recorded stock and excess stock, the production on the date of visit has been excluded. The Original Authority confiscated the excess goods weighing 12,100 Kgs. and valued at Rs. 2,42,000/- but allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 62,500/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 39,527/- under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals), it was not a case of attempted clandestine removal and at the most, it was a case of irregular maintenance of accounts. He seeks upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. The excess stock found was 12,100 Kgs. of PVC Pipes and compared to the stock as per record, which was 56,805 Kgs. The belated ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) is set aside and the order of the Original Authority is restored. While upholding the confiscation of the goods, the redemption fine is reduced from Rs. 62,500/- to Rs. 25,000/-. The penalty imposed amounting to Rs. 39,527/- under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is converted into penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
