2010 (8) TMI 413

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Sukhdev Sharma, Standing Counsel, for the Appellant. [Order per : Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.]. - This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, "the Act") against the order dated 4-8-2009 passed by the Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, proposing to raise following substantial question of law :- "(i) &nbsp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....imposed on the firm as Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 provides penalty on person and not on the firm." 2. The respondent-assessee is a manufacturer of iron and steel products. The representative of the department visited the premises of the respondent on23-12-2003and checked the stocks. As a result thereof, show cause notice was given to the assessee, alleging clandestine removal of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roducts reported as 1995 (78) E.L.T. 298 wherein it has been held that goods are not liable for confiscation for merely non accountal in RG-1 and further no penalty is imposable. Similar view has been taken by the CESTAT in a number of cases reported as- 2000 (117) E.L.T. 644 = 2001 (96) ECR 533 2001 (129) E.L.T. 616 = 2000 (91) ECR 569 2000 (120) E.L.T. 444 = 2001 (133) ECR 691 In vie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ising the amount of duty and penalty. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. Whether in the facts and circumstances, inference of clandestine removal can be justified from the goods being found unaccounted for in record, is a question of fact, to be determined from case to case. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have examined the matter and recorded a concurrent findin....