Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2016 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 354 - HC - Central ExciseClandestine removal of molasses for open market sale - Held that:- When appellant contended that shortage might be due to some fault of employee, the factum that it was not within his knowledge, consent or approval was also to be proved by appellant. Even otherwise, if shortage was due to some negligence on the part of employee, the employee is also an agent of appellant, for any act committed by employee, appellant, being principal is responsible. Hence in present case, onus to prove that shortage was not on account of any objectionable conduct on the part of appellant, was upon appellant which it fails to prove. Tribunal, therefore, was justified in taking a view otherwise and against appellant. Question is answered against appellant. So far as question 1 is concerned, since shortage in physical verification, as already said and evident from record that same was not disputed by appellant, any verification by other authority at some other point of time, would not help appellant and, therefore, question 1 is also answered against appellant.
|