9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty on the respondent company under Section 11 AC would be attracted. As regards penalty on Director of the respondent company - find that the order-in-original does not discuss any evidence that the clandestine removal had taken place with his knowledge or that he was, in any manner, concerned in the disposal of the goods, which he knew are liable for confiscation - Thus, penalty on Director of the respondent company is set aside. - E/2267 of 2008-SM (BR) & 2268 of 2008-SM (BR) - - - Dated:- 9-2-2011 - Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Appearance: Rep. by Shri S.K. Bhaskar,DR for the appellants. Rep. by Shri A.K. Dixit, Advocate for the respondent. Per Rakesh Kumar The respondent are manufacturers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while upholding the duty demand, set aside the penalty on the respondent company as well as on Shri Amit Jain. It is against this order of the Asstt. Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty that the Revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri S.K. Bhaskar, ld. Departmental Representative reiterating the grounds of appeal in the revenue s appeal, pleaded that the shortage in respect of the finished goods and cenvated inputs had been admitted by the respondent s representative in his statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act stating that the goods found short had been removed without payment of duty and without invoices, that the Commissioner (Appeals) s findings that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for this shortage had been given and the respondent s representative, on the contrary, had stated that the goods found short might have been removed without issue of invoices and without payment of duty. In view of this, the Commissioner (Appeals) s findings that there is no evidence of clandestine removal of the goods is incorrect and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty on the respondent under Section 11 AC is also not correct. Since this is a case of clandestine removal, in accordance with the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd. reported in 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC), penalty on the respondent company under Section 11 AC would be attracte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
