2004 (1) TMI 117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original regarding confirmation of duty and imposition of redemption fine and penalties as detailed therein. The learned Counsel has contended that duty of Rs. 1,05,3217- could not be legally confirmed against the appellants on the ground of clandestine removal of the goods, for want of any tangible evidence. (No p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s of the shortage found at the time of physical verification of the stock by the officers of the Central Excise. But no physical verification was carried out. In tact, average weight of each type of joists/channels manufactured by the appellants per feet was worked out and applied to the total weight of each type of joists/channels. The method adopted, was, number of pieces x size of joists (in ft .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty. No statement of any supplier of raw material to the appellants was recorded and utilisation of the same in the manufacture of the goods by the appellants, had not been inquired into Therefore, the impugned order confirming the duty demand of Rs.1,05,321/- cannot be sustained and is set aside. However, the impugned order confirming the duty of Rs. 16,383/- on the goods seized from the truck o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X