Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.40 seconds)Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Sigma Steel Tubes And Anr. on 16 August, 2007
16. As regards penalty I find that in the instant case the appellant-1 has no where admitted the clandestine removal thereof as such. Moreover, the burden to prove the clandestine removal of the impugned finished goods is on the Department which has not been discharged by way of collecting supporting evidences to prove the impugned short found finished goods were clandestinely cleared. I further find that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CCE Vs Sigma, Steel Tubes 2007(218)ELT657(P&H) and Hon'ble Tribunal in a case of CCE, Kanpur Vs. Raghunath International Ltd. and Others reported in 2009 (166)ECR0124 has held that mere shortage of finished goods cannot be equated with clandestine clearance in absence of other evidence and in such a situation penalty under Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not sustainable.
Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Bell Granito Ceramica Ltd on 9 May, 2006
Further Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Campher Drugs & Linimantes-1989(40)ELT276(SC), CCE, Mumbai Vs Bell Granite 2006(198)ELT61(SC) and Cores India Vs CCE-2004(174)ELT7(SC) has stated that positive evidence is required to be produced by the Department before the appellant could be met with the penalty under Section 11-AC of the Act. Similar findings have been given by my predecessor in the case of M/s. KEC Industries Ltd. Bhiwadi vide Order-in-Appeal No.331(DK)CE/JPR-I/2009 dated 17.11.2009. In absence of any evidence of clandestine clearances of short found finished goods, I following the above said orders of the higher appellate authorities set aside the impugned order imposing penalty under Section 11-AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the appellant-1.
M/S Kores (India) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... on 7 November, 2013
Further Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Campher Drugs & Linimantes-1989(40)ELT276(SC), CCE, Mumbai Vs Bell Granite 2006(198)ELT61(SC) and Cores India Vs CCE-2004(174)ELT7(SC) has stated that positive evidence is required to be produced by the Department before the appellant could be met with the penalty under Section 11-AC of the Act. Similar findings have been given by my predecessor in the case of M/s. KEC Industries Ltd. Bhiwadi vide Order-in-Appeal No.331(DK)CE/JPR-I/2009 dated 17.11.2009. In absence of any evidence of clandestine clearances of short found finished goods, I following the above said orders of the higher appellate authorities set aside the impugned order imposing penalty under Section 11-AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the appellant-1.
1