Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (10) TMI 181 - CESTAT, BANGALOREDemand duty - Stock of finished/semi-finished goods - Shortage - Limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no allegation that the appellants have removed goods in clandestine manner. Moreover, the stock taking was done by the appellants themselves. The departmental officers only associated with the same. Hence, the stock taking cannot be said to have been conducted in terms of Rule 223A of the C.E. Rules. In any case, the shortage arrived at is based on estimates. The estimate cannot be said to be very accurate, as it has got its own limitations. It should also be appreciated that there are practical problems in steel plants in the matter of accounting of their production. The CBEC Circular No. 52/79 Cx.6, dated 26-10-1979 has also laid down certain guidelines with regard to condonation of losses observed during annual stock taking. The appellants' submission that the excess/shortage noticed was only marginal should have been given its due consideration. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Micro Forge (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE,[2004 (2) TMI 180 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] has held that when the stock position is arrived at on the basis of estimation, the allegation of shortage of stock and consequent illicit removal of finished goods cannot be sustained. A plethora of case laws hold that provisions of Section 11A would apply in making demands of duty on deficiencies found during stock taking. The appellants based many reasons for discrepancies between the RG-1 and the physical stock. Considering the practical difficulties, in estimating the actual stock and in view of the submissions made by the appellants, we find that the demand of duty made by the adjudicating authority cannot be sustained. Therefore, we allow the appeal with consequential relief.
|