9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of rolled products of iron and steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 21-1-2003, the central excise officers visited the factory premises of the respondent and detected excess stock of 11.807 MT of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty upon the respondents. He further submits that the respondent No. 2 Shri Andesh Gupta, Director of the respondent company had clear knowledge of the excess stock of inputs and he tried to mislead the case. 4. The learned advocate on behalf of the respondents submits that the allegations made in the show cause notice that excess quantity of inputs was made for clandestine removal is merely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority that the discrepancy occurred due to the fact that they have not physically verified the stock of inputs for the last one month. This fact was also admitted by the respondent No. 2 in his statement before the central excise officers which was not refuted by the adjudicating authority. The allegation made in the show cause notice that the excess inputs were intended to be cleared clande ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al cited supra, confiscation of 11.807 MT of ingots is set aside. Accordingly, penalty imposed upon both the appellants is also set aside." I find that the allegation made in the show cause notice that excess inputs were intended to be cleared clandestinely after converting into the finished goods is absolutely without any material and mere conjecture. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
