2015 (6) TMI 952

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Respondent : Mr K P Muralidharan, AC (AR) ORDER Per: D N Panda: Learned counsel vehemently opposes the adjudication on the ground that evasion of duty cannot be presumed alleging clandestine removal. There shall not levy of duty automatically. So also there shall be not be levy of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Both the Directors of the appellant-Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e buyer of such goods to levy. The buyer did not rule out appellant's involvement in the unaccounted clearances. They became witness against appellant by virtue of their dealing with such goods of appellant. The appellant also could not bring out any evidence to lead before the investigation as well as the authorities below, to prove that the goods covered by the chits did not belong to it. Wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion could not be ruled out. Clandestine removal was established from the material facts and circumstances. Therefore, imposition of penalty on both the Directors is justified. Accordingly, their stay applications and appeals are dismissed. 4. At this juncture, submission of learned counsel is that at least penalty of Rs. 95,768/- imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC may be reduced to 25%....