9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. During the course of verification of the records of the respondent, a shortage of 799.535 MTs involving central excise duty of Rs. 17,90,958/- was found. This shortage was worked out based on the opening balance, dispatch, receipt, job work transactions, work in progress, etc. Proceedings were initiated against the respondent alleging clandestine removal of finished goods found short. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty. On appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 29.11.2006 set aside the original order and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. In the appeal, it was contended that the ld. Commissioner's (Appeals) erred in finding that the charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of show cause notice itself, they have explained in detail about the shortage found during the visit of the officers vide their letter dated 31.05.2002. Ld. Counsel further pleaded that the Directors of the Company have repeatedly stated in their submission that there is no shortage as mentioned in Panchnama dated 19.04.2002 and have in fact filed re-conciliation statement of stock. It was further contended that the reliance placed by the Original Authority on the statements of their transporters is neither correct nor relevant. The transporters' statement did not accept any unaccounted clearances of their finished goods to support the allegation of clandestine removal. If at all, they have only disputed the movement of goods for job w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such appeal cannot be agitated again by the respondent. On merits, he pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing the appeal. Based on the evidences on record, the original order has to be restored. 7. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. 8. We consider the maintainability of the appeal first. During the relevant time, the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, when filed by the Revenue before this Tribunal, has to be based on review directions of the Committee of Commissioners and as per their authorization. In the present case, there is no such Committee or review/authorization. In 2009 by moving miscellaneous application, the Revenue wanted to regularize the original appeal filed by the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the statements recorded from the transporters are dealing with non-transport of the goods for job worker and have no relevance to establish the clandestine removal of the finished goods. In any case, these statements were not put to cross examination as requested by the respondent and no reason for the same has been recorded by the original authority. We find from the beginning that the respondent had been pleading regarding incorrect reconciliation of records resulting in shortage of finished goods. In the appeal, the Revenue states that the only plausible explanation for the shortage of finished goods is clandestine removal of such goods. We find such summary assessments and conclusions cannot be sustained in absence of any corrob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
