9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tement. Penalty u/s 11AC of the CEA - Held that: - the Revenue fails to offer any substantial evidence against the appellants to prove fraud, collusion, willful misstatement with intent to evade duty - the present case appears to be covered by Tribunal’s decision in the case of Ranjan Processors vs. CCE, Jaipur II [2009 (9) TMI 867 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where the penalty imposed under section 11AC was modified and a reduced penalty was imposed u/r 27 of CER, 2002 - the penalty of of ₹ 71,893/- imposed on the appellant-assessee is reduced to a penalty of ₹ 5,000/-. Imposition of Penalty on Shri Surendra Kumar Bhura, Director of the assessee company - Held that: - when there are no malafides established in case of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants. 3. With the above background both sides represented by learned counsels, Shri Bharat Bhushan for the appellants and Shri Sanjay Jain for the Revenue have been heard. 4. After careful perusal of the facts on record and the submissions of both the sides, it appears that the department has not taken full pains to make fool proof case against the assessee. The whole case is made mainly on the mere statement of the Director of the Company. The Director Shri Bhura in the statement has accepted the liability of payment on account of shortage found of the finished goods and paid duty voluntarily of the respective amount. 4.1 The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that panchnama does not show how the stock was physically verifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evade payment of duty. When the statement of Director of the assessee company was that it is due to negligence of staff, it can not be stated that it is with the intent to evade payment of duty . When the shortage was informed, the assessee made the payment to discharge the liability of Central Excise duty. Thus, the Revenue fails to offer any substantial evidence against the appellants to prove fraud, collusion, willful misstatement with intent to evade duty. Therefore, the present case appears to be covered by Tribunal s decision in the case of Ranjan Processors vs. CCE, Jaipur II [2010 (262) ELT 696 (Tri-Del)] where the penalty imposed under section 11AC was modified and a reduced penalty was imposed under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence like any private records indicating clandestine clearance of goods or seizure of clandestinely removed goods from the premises of the dealers etc. was relied up on. Therefore, the finding that the goods found shortage should be presumed to have been cleared clandestinely cannot be sustained in the absence of any evidence indicative of such clandestine removal. Undoubtedly, the charge of improper maintenance of accounts is established. 7. In view of the above, the appeal of the party in so far as it relates to demand of duty and order for recovery of interest is concerned, the same is rejected. Penalty of ₹ 1,98,576 imposed under Section 11AC is modified as penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
