2018 (12) TMI 772 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – Clandestine removal – shortage of stock – MS Flat – invocation of provision of Section 11AC – Held that:- There is no evidence brought on record by the Department to substantiate that the goods found short were clandestinely removed. The manufacturer’s obligation to account for the goods received as inputs and the finished good in stock Register is a statutory obligation, failure to do so clearly attracts the penalty provisions. However, no evidence has been relied upon by the Department justifying invocation of provision of Section 11 AC.
–
The challenge of the appellant seeking setting aside of demand of Duty, does not deserve to be accepted. Having held that it is not a case for invoking the provisions of Section 11AC, the penalty imposed is set aside – a general penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposed for breach of Rules.
–
Appeal disposed off. – Appeal No. E/75069/2018 – FO/76504/2018
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
irmed the demand of Central Excise Duty along with interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount. 4. On appeal, The Ld. Counsel (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication Order and rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant Company submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had fixed the date for personal hearings before him on 02/11/2016, 27/01/2017 & 24/02/2017. He further submits that on the earlier two dates, on the request of the appellants, adjournments were granted. But on the 3rd occasion i.e. on 24/02/2017 they sought for adjournment owing to unavoidable circumstances, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) and he proceeded to pass the impugned order ex-parte. Thus, the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of the natural justice. Regarding the shortage of inputs, the Ld. Consultant submits that 52.570 MTs of MS Flat was sent to the job worker
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
dence brought on record by the Department to substantiate that the goods found short were clandestinely removed. The manufacturer s obligation to account for the goods received as inputs and the finished good in stock Register is a statutory obligation, failure to do so clearly attracts the penalty provisions. However, no evidence has been relied upon by the Department justifying invocation of provision of Section 11 AC. 10. In view of the above, the demand ordered by the Adjudicating Authority is upheld. The challenge of the appellant seeking setting aside of demand of Duty, does not deserve to be accepted. Having held that it is not a case for invoking the provisions of Section 11AC, the penalty imposed is set aside. It is a fact that even deponents of the statements at the time of recording, having nowhere admitted the fact of clandestine removal. However, a general penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposed for breach of Rules. The appeal
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =