Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
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 confirms duty demand & penalties but reduces fines in excise case</h1> The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (A) in a case involving detection of excess finished goods and shortages during a factory visit by ... Accountal of goods Issues:- Detection of excess finished goods and shortages during factory visit- Confiscation of seized goods for alleged clandestine removal- Adjudication by Addl. Collector and confirmation by Commissioner (A)- Appellant's contention on excess stock being production of the day- Appellant's explanation on shortages due to captive consumption- Department's justification for confiscation, duty demand, and penalty imposition- Tribunal's analysis on lack of evidence supporting appellant's contentions- Reduction of redemption fine and penalty based on proportionalityDetailed Analysis:The case involved an appeal against the order of Commissioner (A) regarding the detection of excess finished goods and shortages during a factory visit by Central Excise officers. The officers seized the excess goods, suspecting clandestine removal, and adjudicated the case leading to confiscation and imposition of penalties. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electrical stampings, die cast rotors and stators, and exhaust fans, argued that the excess stock was the day's production, not recorded due to labor negligence, and shortages were due to captive consumption without gate passes issued. The department contended that the lack of entries in RG 1 and gate passes justified confiscation, duty demand, and penalties.The Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence supporting their claims. The appellant's argument that excess stock was daily production lacked proof beyond verbal statements, shifting the burden of proof onto them due to unaccounted goods. Similarly, the explanation for shortages lacked evidence, as no gate passes were issued for goods supposedly removed for captive consumption. The Tribunal deemed these explanations as afterthoughts, lacking conviction, especially considering the employees' admission of negligence and clearance without duty payment.While acknowledging the seriousness of unaccounted goods, the Tribunal found the imposed fines and penalties excessive. Consequently, the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 12,000, and the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000. Despite these modifications, the Tribunal confirmed the orders, emphasizing the need for proportionate punishment. The appeal was disposed of with the revised fines and penalties, maintaining the overall confirmation of the orders.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
