TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtages in stock - demand set aside. Penalty on the individuals - Held that:- Inasmuch as, there is no dispute about the fact of settlement of dispute by the main noticee M/s. Ashok Magnetics Pvt. Ltd., before the Settlement Commission, penalty proceedings against the other co-noticees i.e., Director and the employees, are not sustainable - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/42188 to 42190/2017 - 41242-41244/2018 - Dated:- 19-4-2018 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member For the Appellant: Shri M. Karthikeyan, For the Respondent: Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) ORDER All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal stand that the Revenue's case is self-contradictory in respect of clearances - on the one hand, they allege shortage of scraps and on the other hand, they allege issuance of invoices without removal of scrap, in which case, the scrap should be in excess, in their factory. They also sought a reply from the Revenue, as regards the actual weighments. The Superintendent (Adjudication) vide his letter dated 07.06.2008 addressed to the appellant clarified that no weighments of material was made and the whole of the materials were estimated approximately. On the basis of the said communication, the appellant assailed the actual fact of weightments and replied that there were no shortages. In any case, they contested the demand of clandesti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be upheld merely on the basis of shortages in stock. Reference can be made to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Commissioner Vs M/s. Meenakshi Steels as also to Tribunal's decision in the case of (i) M/s. Amba Steels Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-l reported in 2016 (335) E.L.T.97 (Tri. -All.); (ii) M/s. Jyoti Ingots P. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I reported in 2015 (329) E.L.T.511 (Tri.-Del.); and (iii) M/s. Chandpur Enterprises Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Meerut-I reported in 2014 (310) E.L.T.904 (Tri. -Del.). As such, I find no reasons to uphold the said part of the impugned order. 6. As regards the penalty on the individuals, the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
