TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r].- Common issue involved in these appeals and therefore, both the appeals are taken up for hearing together for disposal. 2. Appellant No. 1 is engaged in the manufacture of footwear P.U. Sole etc. classifiable under sub heading 6401.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 18.2.2003, the Central Excise officers visited their factory and verified the stocks of inputs. The officers detected shortage of inputs involving Central Excise duty of Rs.2,39,713/- which was voluntarily debited by the appellant No. 1 vide PLA entry No. 29 dated 19.2.2003. On scrutiny of the records it transpires that the appellant No. 1 removed inputs for processing which need not returned back within 180 days as required under Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or storage loss. He also submits in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant deposited the duty before issue of the show cause notice and therefore no penalty should be imposed. He relied upon the following case laws. (i) CCE, Ludhiana vs. Sigma Steel -2007 (82) RLT 361 (P H) (ii) CCE, Ludhiana vs. Pee Jay International -2007 (213) ELT 709 (Tri-Del) 4. The learned authorized representative (DR) reiterates the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the appellant failed to explain the reasons for shortage and therefore the charge of clandestine removal is appropriate. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the appellant in the statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Advocate has not seriously contested. I find the appellant is required to debit the duty if they fail to return back the job work material within the stipulated period. So, the demand of duty of Rs. 204902/- on the inputs cleared for job work is upheld. 7. Regarding the imposition of penalty, I find force in the submission of the learned Advocate. It is seen from the record that the shortage of inputs was detected during the stock verification. The appellant debited the duty immediately upon detection. The appellant also explained on the spot that they are not conducted the stock taking for a long time and therefore such shortage may be detected. The Tribunal in the case of Pee Jay International (supra) held that clandestine r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
