9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue has challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent that it has reduced the penalty of Rs.2,14,739/- imposed on the respondent by the adjudicating authority to Rs.25,000 /- 2. The learned Authorised Representative for the Department has strongly contended that there was absolutely no warrant on the facts of the case for taking a lenient view of the matter and reducing the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority in the facts and circumstances of the case, apart from the fact that as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana [ CCE Delhi-III v. Machino Montell (I)Ltd . - 2006 (202) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rket at the rate of Rs.12500/- per m.t. for steel ingots and Rs.15700/- per m.t. for M.S. bars. He also admitted that these transactions were not entered into the statutory record and the goods were removed without paying the Central Excise duty which was payable by the respondent. It was also stated that he could not record the names of the buyers to whom the goods were sold and those persons were unknown to him. These admitted facts have never been retracted and show the blatant way in which the respondent-assessee acted with intent to evading payment of duty. In a case like this there would obviously be no warrant for reducing penalty from the amount equal to the duty determined as was imposed y the adjudicating authority. When the adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the details of all such clearances in some register and append their signature. This is never done. Hence, clandestine activity at best can be established only by circumstantial evidence. It should also be borne in mind that it will be humanly impossible to establish every link in the chain of c activity". 5. The duty determined was fully warranted under Section 11AC as imposed by the adjudicating authority for cogent reasons, and, therefore, the question whether any reduced penalty could be imposed or not does not arise for consideration in this matter. 6. For the foregoing reasons the impugned order, to the extent that it reduces penalty imposed on the respondent, is set aside, and the penalty imposed by the order-in-original i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
