9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the premises of the appellant and stock taking was done on the basis of average taken up by weighing 5 bundles of each size and it was concluded that as per records the quantity shown is 1092.370 MT. Whereas, on the basis of average weight taken it was found that 911.47 MT. Therefore, there is a shortage of 180.899 MT which the appellant could not explain satisfactorily. Therefore, it was alleged that the short found finished goods have been cleared by the appellant clandestinely. On the basis of this investigation the show cause notice was issued to demand duty on the shortages along with interest and proposal of penalty was also made. Adjudication took place. Demand on account of clandestine removal of goods was confirmed along with i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ethod available at the relevant time and same has not been agitated by the appellant. Therefore, the finished goods were found short and these shortages could not be explained by the appellant satisfactorily. In these circumstances, demand is rightly confirmed. To support his contention he relied on the decision in the case of J.C. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Kanpur - 2012 (276) E.L.T. 254 (Tri.-Del.). 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submission. 6. I have gone through the factual matrix of the case and found that in this case charge of clandestine removal has been alleged against the appellant on the basis of shortages found on finished; goods wherein the weighment has been done on the basis of number of bundles and aver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration work out to a total quantity may have variation if physical weighment was done. Therefore, the method of weighment is not correct. Further, to allege clandestine removal of goods in the case of Arya Fibers Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 2014 (311) E.L.T. 529 (Tri.-Amd.) the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal has prescribed the norms to prove the charge of clandestine removal. 8. In this case no such norms has been followed to allege clandestine removal of the goods. In these circumstances, in the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the allegation of clandestine removal except the average weighment done in this case the charge remains unproved. Further, in reply to the show cause notice appellant has given the details of weighm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
