9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue ORDER Per Shri H. K. Thakur The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against Order-in-Appeal No.52/BOL/2013 dated 09.05.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Kolkata-III as first appellate authority. Under this Order-in-Appeal dated 09.05.2013 first appellate authority has upheld the Order-in-Original dated 30.09.2008 passed by the Adjudicating authority. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emoval of the goods. It was thus argued by the learned Advocate that Appeal filed by the Appellant may be allowed. Alternately it was also argued by the learned Advocate that Adjudicating authority has not extended the Appellant option of 25% reduced penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. That if on merits Appellant s arguments are not considered then option of 25% reduced pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thought. Learned AR strongly defended the Order-in-Appeal dated 09.05.2013 passed by the first appellate authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 5. It is observed from the show cause notice dated 22.04.2008 that Officers of Central Excise Anti-Evasion Unit, Bolpur visited the factory premises of the Appellant on 05.12.2007 and found a shortage of 118.53 MTs of TMT bars. A st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitting the shortages and not coming forward to explain the same, blocks the investigation. It has been discussed in para 5.6 of Order-in-Original dated 30.09.2008, that in the case of Majestic Auto Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (172) ELT 391 (Tri.-Del.)] CESTAT held that demand with respect to shortages can be confirmed when no tangible evidence and explanation was offered by the noticee. It is also made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
