2015 (6) TMI 985

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... DR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellants are in appeals against the impugned orders imposing penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The facts of the case are that a visit was conducted at the premises of the appellants on 8-7-2010 and 9-7-2010. The shortage of inputs/finished goods were found and no pausable explanation was given by the appellant but reversed th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ages found on eye estimation basis works out to 0.56% for the year 2009-2010 and 0.46% for the year 2010-11 which is a very meager quantity. Moreover, no evidence has been brought by the Revenue to allege clandestine removal of the goods from the factory of the appellant. In the absence of any corroborative evidence the charge of clandestine removal is not sustainable. As the appellant is not cont .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tock taking was done on eye estimation basis has not been reverted by the Revenue without any supportive evidence and there is a shortage of around 0.56%. That shortage may be due to the stock taking by way of eye estimation basis. Furthermore, revenue has not produced any corroborative evidence to allege goods have been removed clandestinely without payment of duty. Therefore, case laws relied up .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X