TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Duty Demand & Personal Penalties, Adjusts Amounts</h1> The Tribunal confirmed the demand of duty for clandestine removal of goods and upheld the liability for personal penalties, with modifications to the ... Demand - Clandestine removal, proof - Penalty Issues:Clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty, confirmation of demand of duty, imposition of personal penalties under various sections of the Central Excise Act and Rules.Analysis:The case involved the discovery of three delivery challans indicating the removal of coated/laminated fabrics from the appellant's factory without proper documentation of payment of duty. The Manager and Partner of the company admitted to the illicit removal of goods during the investigation. Based on these statements and evidence, proceedings were initiated, resulting in a demand of duty and imposition of personal penalties by the Joint Commissioner.During the appeal process, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty but set aside the personal penalty imposed under Rule 173Q. The main argument presented by the appellant was the lack of sufficient evidence to prove clandestine removal, shifting the onus to the assessee. However, the presence of delivery challans and the admission of clandestine removal by the Manager and Partner shifted the burden back to the appellants.The Tribunal found that the evidence supported the clandestine removal of goods, justifying the demand of duty. Regarding personal penalties, the appellants argued that a portion of the duty had been paid before the show cause notice, citing a precedent. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the personal penalty imposed under Section 11AC but upheld the liability for penalty. The appeal of the appellant was rejected, with the penalty amount modified.In conclusion, the Tribunal confirmed the demand of duty for clandestine removal of goods and upheld the liability for personal penalties, albeit with modifications to the penalty amounts based on the appellant's argument regarding pre-paid duty. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the penalties adjusted in line with the Tribunal's decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
