Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (8) TMI 531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ification and the same was not entered in the stock records/RG1, and accordingly there is no discrepancy in the stock of raw material. Therefore, the variation found is a normal variation and no adverse inference could be drawn. - Decided in favour of appellant - E/50088/2015(SM) - Final Order No. 70289/2016 - Dated:- 17-6-2016 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Judicial Member Present for the Appellant: Shri A.P. Mathur, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri Sanjay Hasija ORDER The appellant is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 10/10/14 by which duty has been confirmed on the stock of raw material and finished goods found short along with penalty, on the date of inspection. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ived in the office of the authority on 06/8/12 that they have forgotten to count 290 pieces of inputs which had been charged in the furnace but had not been recorded in the stock records and the average rate of the same is almost equal to the difference in the stock of raw materials. Accordingly he urged that there is no shortage in the stock of raw material and paid the duty demanded on M.S. Bars, ₹ 23,232/- on 6/8/12. It is further the fact on record that there was no electricity since 31/7/12 and hence the production was lying stand still at the time of inspection. 3. Show Cause Notice dated 26/2/13 was issued as it appeared to revenue that the shortage of raw material have not been adequately explained and explanation given sub .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y there would not be any possibility of feeding the electric furnace with MS ingots, as claimed by the appellant. 4. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. The Id. Counsel Shri A.P. Mathur, urges that there is bound to be variation in the method of stock taking adopted by the physical verification. It is admitted fact that 10 pieces of finished goods or raw material were weighed and their average weight was multiplied with the number of pieces. In such method of valuation of stock, some variation is bound to be and the variation found in the case of the appellant is normal and no adverse inference could have been drawn. He further states that the appellant had given declaration within 5 days of the inspection stating that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order. The learnedly AR further relies on the ruling of the Honourable Allahabad High Court in the case of Bajrang Petro Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2014 TIOL-2254-HC All-CX where in the case of huge shortage of finished goods found during stock taking and the assessee could not offer any explanation and admitted the shortage and paid the duty, the Honourable High Court held that in view of the fact that no explanation was offered of the shortage found at the time of stocktaking and further duty was paid on the same, amounts to admission on the part of the appellant and such admission of goods found short, inference can be drawn that the same have been removed without payment of duty. The learnedly AR .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er the learnedly AR also relies on the ruling in the case of Karori Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T. 373 (Tri.-Del) wherein it was held that the mere fact that the signature of the officers of Central Excise was not there on the statement, the same is immaterial especially when the maker of the statement (Partner) have not denied of having made the same and had not even retracted the same at any stage. The learnedly AR also relies on Zaki Ishrati versus Commissioner of Central Excise 2010 (255) E.L.T. 545 (Tri.-Del.) wherein also in the statement recorded, the concerned officer had not appended his signature in the statement it was held that the statement made in own handwriting and delivered to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates