9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 49.35 of CTD bars and 24.50 M.T. of M.S. Rolls involving duty of Rs.1,76,512/- was found. As regards the cenvated raw materials, shortage of 79.525 of M.S. Ingots and 20 KL of Furnace Oil involving central excise duty of Rs.2,33,889/- was detected. The total duty involved on the finished goods and cenvated raw materials found short was Rs.4,10,401-. Shri R.K. Singh, Authorized Signatory of the respondent company on being asked, admitting the shortage, stated that the goods found short might have been cleared without paying central excise duty and without issue of invoices. The respondent, thereafter, paid the entire duty on the stock of finished goods and inputs found short. Subsequently, after issue of show cause notice, the Asstt. Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of this, the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri A.K.Dixit, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that the respondent while reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) pleaded that just on account of the shortage of the finished goods or cenvated inputs, the clandestine removal cannot be inferred, that there was no justification for imposition of penalty on Shri Amit Jain, Director of the respondent company and that he had no active role and in any case, since in this case, the entire duty had been paid prior to issue of show cause notice and inspite of this, no option for availing the benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to Section 11 AC had been given by the Asstt. Commissioner in the order-in-orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner option to pay the reduced penalty under Section 11 AC was not given, the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P. Pouches (supra) would be applicable and accordingly, penalty imposable on the respondent would be only 25% of the duty/cenvat credit demand confirmed. As regards penalty on Shri Amit Jain, Director of the respondent company, I 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. In view of this, penalty on Shri Amit Jain, Director of the respondent company is set aside. 2. Thus, while the Appeal No.E/2268 of 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
