TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen that on 8-1-2004 Central Excise Officers visited the respondent s factory and conducted stock verification. The said officers detected shortage of finished goods involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 79,760/-. Shri Om Prakash Yadav, authorized signatory accepted the shortage and deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that in the Show Cause Notice penalty was proposed under Section 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submits that there is no material available to prove clandestine removal of goods. She relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Ludhiana v. Omkar Steel Tubes (P) Ltd., reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25 of the Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act. It is seen that shortage was detected during stock verification. Authorized signatory of the respondent-company admitted the shortage and paid the duty immediately. But he failed to explain the reason for shortage. In any event, there is no material available to prove clandestine removal of the goods. Therefore, imposition of penalty under Rule 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
