TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009-SM(BR) - - - Dated:- 15-6-2011 - Mr. M. Veeraiyan, J. Appearance: Shri Saurav Yadava, Advocate for the Appellants Shri S.K. Bhaskar, DR for the Respondent Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 449-450-CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 24.12.08. 2. Heard both sides extensively. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the officers visited the premises of the appellant#s factory on 14.8.07 and conducted verification of stock which revealed the following discrepancies: S. No. Description of finished goods Stock should be as per record (MT) RUD-3 Qty. of goods physically found in the factory (MT) Difference in stock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have been sent by the original authority has not been received, and that this plea was taken before the Commissioner (Appeals). But the Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt with the same. He seeks setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Alternatively, he submits that there is no finding of clandestine removal and therefore, no penalty under section 11AC should be sustained. 6. Learned DR reiterates the findings and reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The shortage of goods in four different categories of finished goods manufactured by them have been reproduced above. In the case of round bar, the shortage is more than 85%. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case. Commissioner (Appeals) has also noted that the overall shortage is more than 10% of the weight of the entries in the record, therefore, the same cannot be treated as nominal or permissible shortage. Since shortage was substantial and no explanation was forthcoming, the appellants have failed to explain the shortage of goods accounted for in the production records, the liability to pay duty cannot be doubted. The interest liability is also to be upheld. 8. However, every case of shortage cannot be presumed to be a case of clandestine removal in the absence of other evidence corroborating the same. The authorised signatory has expressed his inability to explain the shortage.No further investigation appears to have been undertake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
