TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 & penalty for goods removal, reduces redemption fine to ensure fair penalty balance.</h1> <h3>M/s. New Field Detergents Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Jaipur - I</h3> M/s. New Field Detergents Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Jaipur - I - TMI Issues:1. Confirmation of duty demand and penalty for clandestine removal of goods without payment of Central Excise duty.2. Non-maintenance of statutory records by the appellant.3. Imposition of redemption fine on seized goods.Issue 1: Confirmation of duty demand and penalty for clandestine removal of goods without payment of Central Excise dutyThe appeal was against an order passed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur, where the Department initiated Show Cause proceedings based on discrepancies in the factory's goods record. It was found that the appellant had not properly accounted for manufactured goods in the Daily Stock Account, leading to a shortage/excess of finished goods and raw material compared to the maintained accounts. The adjudication order confirmed Central Excise Duty demand of &8377; 45,207 for clandestine clearance of goods, along with interest and a penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, found that the appellant failed to provide valid reasons to refute the Revenue's claim of goods being clandestinely removed without payment of duty. Additionally, the appellant did not justify the non-maintenance of statutory records. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the duty demand and penalty, stating they were in line with statutory provisions.Issue 2: Non-maintenance of statutory records by the appellantThe Tribunal noted that the appellant did not offer any justifiable reasons for the improper maintenance of statutory records, which was crucial for compliance with Central Excise regulations. This failure to maintain accurate records contributed to the detection of discrepancies in the goods account, indicating a lack of diligence on the appellant's part. The Tribunal considered this as a serious lapse on the appellant's end, further supporting the decision to uphold the duty demand and penalty imposed by the authorities.Issue 3: Imposition of redemption fine on seized goodsWhile affirming the duty demand and penalty, the Tribunal found the redemption fine of &8377; 20,000 on the seized goods valued at &8377; 62,581 to be excessive. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to reduce the redemption fine from &8377; 20,000 to &8377; 5,000. This adjustment aimed to balance the penalty imposed on the appellant for the irregularities detected in the goods account, ensuring fairness in the overall adjudication process.In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by confirming the duty demand and penalty while adjusting the redemption fine on the seized goods. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining accurate statutory records and complying with Central Excise regulations to avoid penalties and legal consequences for non-compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 