Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 223 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal of goods - Lack of evidence - goods found short during verification in the factory and consequent imposition of penalties - Held that:- detailed punchnama has been drawn during the visit to the factory on 20.7.2009 and detailed inspection has been conducted indicating standard weight of each bundle of 8 mm,10 mm, 12 mm, 16 mm, 20 mm and 25 mm of M.S.Bars. Simple physical weighments were done in the factory which were based on weight indicated by the representative of the appellant and accordingly that was made basis of calculation. This fact is not contested by the appellant. Only contest is weight of loose TMT and mixed lot of round, TMT and Tor and the bar. I find that their representative associated in weighment and consequent determination of shortage and those conclusions were duly accepted with signatures on verification report put by the authorised representative of the appellant. Raising those points at this level is not acceptable as fact of shortage is clearly manifested and acceptance of shortage by their representative and consequent deposit of duty on the shortage voluntarily clearly indicated that the proceedings have been conducted after taking them into confidence and were based on specified para-meters. Material involved for verification are M.S.Bars and M.S.Ingots which were steel items having identity, shape and specified weight. M.S.Ingots are used in the factory as inputs for manufacture of M.S.Bars of the process of rolling. Ingots are normally received from outside in the factory on which credit is taken by the appellant. For shortage lying in the stock has to be duly counted as items are not as such which will get mixed and remain identifiable. This cannot be stated that due to certain percentage of wastage, these items will not get consumed. I do not find any force in the contention of the appellant that merely because of percentage of total stock of 2.55% in the M.s.Ingots and in the bars 8.5% against the book balance 378.445 MT ipso-facto does not lead to conclusion that shortage should be ignored and no action for demand of duty and imposition of penalty should be taken. No justification is found for the shortage and representative has duly admitted the shortage by signing stock report, duty voluntarily paid. There is no case for dropping of penalty as the demand relating to the duty has already been paid. Further imposition of penalty has been already dealt with very liberally by the Commissioner (Appeals) even though provision of section 11AC are applicable. I do not interfere in the reduction of the Commissioner (Appeals)s order - Decided against assessee.
|