TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at: - it was observed that during the last six months i.e. from July 2010 to 24 January 2011, they have produced 8712.220 MT of MS Ingot and the shortage detected is only 0.63% of the production during the period in question and hence a very small negligible difference has been found which in no way can be removed clandestinely - there is no evidence on record of clandestine removal of the goods. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue (s) ORDER Per: Shri P.K. Choudhary Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 2. The appellant, in their appeal, framed the questions as to whether shortage of finished goods detected during stock taking can be held as shortage due to clandestine removal of goods, without any cogent evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount as deposited by the appellant company and also to enforce penalty on the Director of the company. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 1,53,094/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount of duty under Section 11AC of the Act. The amount of ₹ 1,53,094/- has also been appropriated out of the amount of ₹ 1,60,000/- as deposited by them. Furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company in his statement stated that it might be an accounting error. But, they have voluntarily deposited the amount. According to Commissioner (Appeals), such acceptance is nothing but admission of offense on the part of the appellant. I am unable to accept the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is well settled that there is some material required to establish the clandestine removal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d High Court in the case of Bajrang Petro Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur [2015 (317) ELT 243 (All.)]. In that case, there was huge shortage of finished goods for which no explanation was offered at the time of stock taking. In the instant case, there was a shortage of negligible quantity and the assessee has offered an explanation and therefore, the case law relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
