COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. MODERN INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 7917 /2014 (for condonation of delay)

(2.) THE following questions of law were framed at the stage of admission: -

(3.) IT was contended, on behalf of the Revenue, that the CESTAT's reasoning is flawed since there was sufficient material to indicate clandestine removal and this aspect was not gone into. Learned counsel also urged that inherent in the concept of clandestine removal, is the fact that the assessee has been able to get past the Revenue and upon being caught, some extent of calculation is involved. Justifying the imposition of a proportion principle or ratio in the present case, learned counsel stated that this is as fair as any other method, given that the nature of the objectionable behavior i.e. removal of goods without declaration was proscribed and in fact called for action under Section 11A.