9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise, Ghaziabad (2010 (10) TMI 316 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) & Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata v. Hanuman Udyog (2007 (9) TMI 148 - CESTAT KOLKATA). As such, the appellate authority was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed upon the assessee inasmuch as the demand of duty was not being contested by the respondent, he rightly confirmed the same. Confirmation of demand in respect of furnance oil - As the Revenue is not disputing the fact of procurement of the same and its use in the boiler on trial basis. Inasmuch as furnace oil stand procured by the appellant, the credit of duty paid on the same was rightly availed by the respondent. No infirmity is found in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - in favour of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 3-9-2008 proposing confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 2,00,513/- then, Rs. 1,31,524/- and Rs. 1,55,207/- along with confirmation of interest amount and imposition of penalty. The show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority confirming demand as proposed in the notice and imposing penalties upon the appellant. 6. On appeal against the above order, Commissioner (Appeals) by taking into account various decisions of the Tribunal held that mere acceptance of shortages in stock of the goods does not lead to clandestine removal of the same and as such cannot be made a ground for imposition of penalty. Accordingly he set aside the penalty imposed upon the appellant in respect of shortages in the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent evidence, cannot lead to inference of clandestine removal. To the same effect is the Tribunal decision in the case of L.M. Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad - 2011 (264) E.L.T. 243 (Tri.-Delhi) as also the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata v. Hanuman Udyog - 2008 (222) E.L.T. 395 (Tri.-Kolkata). As such, the appellate authority was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed upon the respondent inasmuch as the demand of duty was not being contested by the respondent, he rightly confirmed the same. 8. As regards setting aside of confirmation of demand in respect of furnance oil, I find that Revenue is not disputing the fact of procurement of the same and its use in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
