9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturing of the finished goods. As the appellant has cleared two or three times more than of the quantity entered in ISI register , therefore, the entries made in ISI register cannot be the basis of the demand of duty on account clandestine clearance of the goods. Penalty - Held that: - As the appellant has paid an amount of ₹ 4 lacs during the course of investigation itself. In that circumstances, the penalty is reduced to 25% of the duty confirmed on the main appellant which shall be payable by the appellant within 30 days of the receipt of this order failing which the appellant shall be liable to pay 100% of the duty confirmed as penalty. Penalties on directors - Held that: - without the knowledge of the directors, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant has cleared clandestinely goods entered in the ISI registers during the period 2006-2007, 2003-04 and 2005-06. It was also found that the finished goods have been cleared by way of clearance of finished goods on parallel invoices on the basis of records resumed during the course of investigation. In these set of facts, the show cause notices were issued to demand duty of ₹ 15,44,883/- along with interest and to impose penalty of all the appellants. The matter was adjudicated as the appellants have admitted clandestinely removal of goods, therefore, the demand was confirmed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are before me. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants are not disputing a demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of the show cause notice, therefore after giving the cum duty benefit, the penalty to be reduced to 25% of the demand confirmed against the appellant. 7. He further submitted that there is no specific evidence against the role of directors that they were involved in clandestine removal of goods, therefore, no penalty is imposable on the directors. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that it is a case of admission by the appellant that they were clearing goods clandestinely. In that circumstances, nothing required to be proved and on the basis of documents recovered by the department, the case has been made out for clandestine clearance of goods which has not been controverted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents of the Revenue is that as the appellant is not maintaining stock register, therefore, the entries made in ISI register are reflecting the production of the appellant. If the argument of the Ld. AR is not acceptable that the entire entries made in ISI register are the total production of the appellants. As the appellant has cleared two or three times more than of the quantity entered in ISI register , therefore, the entries made in ISI register cannot be the basis of the demand of duty on account clandestine clearance of the goods. As no positive evidence has been produced by the Revenue in support of the clandestine removal of the goods, therefore, on the basis of entries made in ISI register the demands are not sustainable. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
