9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - to Rs.10,000/- Redemption fine - Redemption fine cannot be correlated to the duty payable on the inputs because there is no case that such duty has not been paid -redemption fine, normally the guideline is the profit that can accrue to the party due to the proposed clandestine activity should be taken as basis. This would mean that the duty that can be evaded by manufacturing goods clandestinely and removing without payment of duty has to be the reasonable basis - This duty will be more than the duty paid on inputs - find that the redemption fine imposed in the order-in-original is maintainable. - E/376 of 2009-SM and Cross-Objection No. 70 of 2009-SM - - - Dated:- 31-3-2011 - Mr. Mathew John, J. Appearance: Appeared for A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs and Rs.5,000/- respectively. Penalty equal to duty amount of Rs.2,86,727/- plus Rs. 8,551/- involved in the excess quantity of the two inputs was imposed under Rule 15 of the Central Excise Rules. Further, a penalty of Rs.31,003/- was imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The respondent filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed differential duty demanded in respect of the final products found short. However, he set aside the confiscation of the excess raw materials found during stock taking. Consequently, the final penalty on account of excess goods was also set aside. Further, he reduced penalty under Rule 25 from Rs.31,003/- to Rs.10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .07. Considering the nature of these goods within a day or two the goods should have been received in the factory of the respondent and there is no case that the person who was dealing with excise formalities were on leave during that time. Clandestine removal has been accepted by the party inasmuch as they have not contested the duty demanded. It is fairly evident that this respondent is not an assessee who accounts all goods manufactured. Therefore there is a burden on them to prove that the excess raw material was due to bonafide mistake. The respondent has failed to discharge this burden. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the department has not been able to prove the intention to evade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
