TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , J. Appearance Shri D.H.Nadkarni, advocate for Appellant Shri S.R.Bhatti, D.C.A.R. for Respondent Per : Sahab Singh This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Nagpur. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of excisable rolled products of iron steel and availed the facility of cenvat credit on inputs under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. They have informed that for recording production in their records the weighment of manufactured rolled products of iron steel is taken on sectional weight method basis and accordingly stock of manufactured goods so arrived at is entered in their records. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order. 3. The ld.counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that regarding shortage of finished goods, the method used for arriving the stock of finished products is by taking actual weight of one bundle of each variety of rolled products multiplied by total number of pieces of each variety by sectional weight method. This can result in error of weighment as compared to physical weighment of each and every piece. He submitted that percentage of finished product found short is less than one percent which may be attributable to error in weighing method or weighing bridges. He further contended that since the raw material found tallied with that of recorded balance in statutory records, there cannot be a case of clandestine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mere non-entry in RG 1 register will not amount to non-accountal of goods unless it is supported by past conduct of assessee in removing goods. 3) CCE, Rohtak vs J.R.Fabrics (P) Ltd. [2009(238) ELT 209 (P H)]. Relying on this decision the ld.advocate submitted that since the duty has deposited before issue of show-cause notice, the department was required to reduce the penalty to 25% which was not done in this case. 4. The ld. D.C.A.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that since the appellants were involved in evasion of duty, the lower authorities have rightly confiscated the goods and imposed fine and penalty. 5. After hearing both sides, I find that on a visit to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants. Since the goods are liable for confiscation under Rule 25, the manufacturer are also liable for penalty.Therefore, the penalty under Sec.11AC is rightly imposed by the adjudicating authority and rightly upheld by the appellate authority. The appellants, contention is that since the duty was paid before the issue of show-cause notice, no penalty is imposable. Since this is a case of wilful suppression of the production and clandestine removal of the goods with intent to evade payment of duty, the provisions of Sec.11 AC are invocable and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Dhrmendra Textile Processors reported as 2008 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), no discretion available on the quantum of penalty under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
