Tribunal reduces penalty for clandestine removal, upholds duty demand and Director's liability.

The Tribunal upheld the duty demand for clandestine removal but reduced the penalty imposed on the respondent to 25% of the duty amount in accordance with Section 11AC and relevant case law. The penalty on the Director was also upheld but reduced to Rs. 5,000 due to his involvement in the removal. The Tribunal set aside the previous Order-in-Appeal and reinstated the Order-in-Original with modifications.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal confirming duty demand for clandestine removal but setting aside penalty.
- Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC for clandestine removal.
- Liability of Director for penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
- Applicability of first proviso to Section 11AC for reduced penalty.
- Reduction of penalty under Section 11AC to 25% of duty amount.
- Reduction of penalty on Director to Rs. 5,000.

Analysis:
- The appeals were filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal confirming duty demand for clandestine removal but setting aside the penalty on the respondent. The Commissioner relied on various judgments to support the decision, including those of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, and the Tribunal. The Revenue contended that penalty should be imposed under Section 11AC despite duty payment before the show cause notice, citing relevant case law.
- The respondent argued against the penalty, stating that the shortage of finished goods did not conclusively prove clandestine removal. They claimed the duty was paid before the notice and should have been given the option for reduced penalty as per the first proviso to Section 11AC. They cited judgments to support their stance.
- The Tribunal found that the shortage of goods and the admission by the Director established clandestine removal, meeting the criteria for penalty under Section 11AC. However, since duty was paid before the notice, the Tribunal held that the option for reduced penalty should have been provided as per the first proviso to Section 11AC. Therefore, the penalty was reduced to 25% of the duty amount, aligning with relevant case law.
- Regarding the penalty on the Director, the Tribunal upheld the imposition due to his involvement in the clandestine removal. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000 considering the reduction in the overall penalty under Section 11AC. The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal and restored the Order-in-Original with modifications as discussed.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, detailing the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision based on applicable laws and precedents.

---