9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods were removed without payment of Central Excise duty, the Central Excise duty demand confirmed in respect of clearance of disputed goods in respect of 22 challans is proper and justified and the impugned order cannot be interfered with at this juncture. Penalty - Held that: - Since the adjudicating authority has not given the option to the appellant to deposit the reduced amount of penalty of 25%, such option should be available to the appellant. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority is directed to quantify the amount of reduced penalty, which is required to be paid by the appellant. Personal penalty on the Director of the appellant company - Held that: - the department has not specifically brought on any evidence, showing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Show Cause Notice issued in this regard was adjudicated against the appellants, wherein Central Excise duty demand of ₹ 22,32,781/- was confirmed and equal amount of penalty was imposed. Further, impugned order also imposed penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs on Shri Nirmal Kumar Mehta, Director of the appellant company. On appeal against the adjudication order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order has upheld the adjudged demand. Hence, these appeals were filed before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the processed MMF in respect of 139 challans were removed from one plant to the other within the factory premises and in absence of proof regarding clearance of those goods from the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he factory premises. In view of the fact that the Director has not specifically admitted that the goods were removed clandestinely from the factory and in view of the fact that the challans contained the name of the consignee as self , it can be concluded that the charges of clandestine removal cannot be levelled against the appellant with regard to the goods covered under 139 challans. Further, I also find that the department has not brought any iota of evidence to prove clandestine removal of the goods covered under those challans. 7. With regard to removal of the goods under the cover of 22 challans, I find that the Director of the appellant company has specifically stated before the Central Excise department that the goods were remo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
