9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.08.2010, the preventive officer of the Central Excise Department visited the factory of the appellant and verified the finished stock of MS Ingots. After verification, it was observed that the stock entered in the statutory records is less than the physical quantity found in the factory as recorded in the statutory records. Therefore, it was alleged that appellant has cleared 27.88 metric tonne MS Ingots without payment of duty. Accordingly, a case has been made out against the main appellant and the co appellant for imposing the penalty. It was also found that the appellant received the credit note from the supplier of the goods on the basis of defective quality of the inputs i.e. sponge iron supplied by the supplier of the goods. For wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the supplier to the goods is not chargeable to duty, as the discount has been given for the defective quality of the input and that discount does not include any amount towards duty leviable thereon. Therefore, whatever duty has been paid by the appellant he has taken the credit thereof. To Support his contention he relied on the CBEC Circular No.877/15/2008 dated 17.11.2008. 5. On the other hand Ld. AR opposes the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that in this case the panchnama clearly records the method of weighment of the finished goods, as explained by the authorized representative of the appellant itself. And on the basis of that method, the weighment was done and no explanation for shortage has been given. Therefore, relyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re than 10 percent but in the case in hand the shortage is less than 10 percent. Therefore, the decision in the case of JC Rolling mills Pvt. Ltd. have no relevance to the facts of this case. Further, I find that in the case of Bajrang Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) the issue before the Hon ble High Court was of imposition of penalty on the appellant under Rule 25 & 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In that case the Tribunal after considering the detailed facts of the case, imposed the penalty on the appellants and after going through the decision of this Tribunal, the Hon ble High Court has observed that when the appellants had admitted shortage and paid the duty and had not explained any suitable explanation for the shortage of fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
