TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... method for clandestinely removal of the goods is not required to be explained. Since, it is a case of the shortage of the finished goods for which the appellant has no explanation, so the provision of Section-11AC for levy of the penalty and Rule-26 for levy of the penalty on the authorized signatory would be attracted. - no reason to interfere with the impugned order - Decided against the assessee. - Central Excise Appeal No. - 241 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2014 - Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala And Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,JJ. For the Appellant : A. P. Mathur For the Respondent : S.S.C.,B.K.S. Raghuvanshi,Vinod Kant Srivastava ORDER We have heard Sri A.P.Mathur on the review application. We find that after hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,781 litres in the stock of finished goods. The assessee could not explain the shortage so the duty demand was raised and a penalty was imposed under Section-11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The duty was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner dated 31.05.2007, but the penalty was cancelled by the first appellate authority. But the Tribunal has restored the levy of the penalty. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal. With this background, heard Sri A.P.Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee who submitted that in fact, there was no shortage. So called shortage was due to verification to dip method which is not very authentic and there always can be variations. The shortage was detected in the stock of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king. It means that the appellant had admitted the shortage and paid the duty accordingly. Thus, the appellant was unable to give any suitable explanation for the shortage of the finished goods. This is an admission by the appellant that the goods found short had been removed without payment of the duty. The method for clandestinely removal of the goods is not required to be explained. Since, it is a case of the shortage of the finished goods for which the appellant has no explanation, so the provision of Section -11AC for levy of the penalty and Section -26 for levy of the penalty on the authorized signatory would be attracted. In view of above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the same is hereby sustaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
