TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner (Appeals). The Revenue has challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent that it has reduced the penalty of Rs.2,14,739/- imposed on the respondent by the adjudicating authority to Rs.25,000 /- 2. The learned Authorised Representative for the Department has strongly contended that there was absolutely no warrant on the facts of the case for taking a lenient view of the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that when the physical verification of the stock was done by the preventive staff on 14-9-02 in the factory premises of the respondent, engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel product, it was found that there was a shortage to the extent of 80.345 m.ts. of steel ingots valued at Rs.1004312/- involving Cenvat credit of Rs. 160690/- and 21.373 m.ts of MS Bars valued at Rs.335556/- involving C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paying the Central Excise duty which was payable by the respondent. It was also stated that he could not record the names of the buyers to whom the goods were sold and those persons were unknown to him. These admitted facts have never been retracted and show the blatant way in which the respondent-assessee acted with intent to evading payment of duty. In a case like this there would obviously be n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grossly erred in giving benefit of doubt to the respondent, by observing that there was simply presumption of clandestine removal. There was no question of any presumption when clandestine removal was specifically admitted by the partner by stating that the goods were sold on cash basis due to financial, crises faced by the assessee, without issuing invoice or entering them in the relevant record....