2008 (4) TMI 604

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nbsp;The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Respondent No. l Company is engaged in the manufacture of forgings of spare parts, accessories, components of motor vehicle classifiable under sub-heading No. 7326.19 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 23/24-12-2004, the Central Excise Officers visited the Respondents' factory and conducted stock verification. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... He imposed penalty of equal amount of duty each on both the Respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the Adjudication Order and uphold the demand of Rs. 1,78,327/- and set aside the penalties on both the Respondents. Revenue filed these appeals against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Respondent No. 2 in his statement admitt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gned order that the Central Excise Officers detected shortage of raw materials of 38.27 M.T. of rounds. The Respondent No. 2 admitted the shortage of inputs. He explained that the shortage must have accumulated over the period of time due to wrong reporting by some staff. The Respondent accepted to reverse the credit on the shortage of inputs. The Central Excise Officers converted the shortage of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X