TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of stock in their record - confiscation and redemption fine justified - penalties also upheld. Clandestine removal - clearance of 65.903 M.T. of the unrecorded stock of finished goods - extended period of limitation - Held that:- It is seen from the record that the Director of the appellant company in his statement dated 31.05.2011 had accepted the non-existence of 65.903 MT of the unrecorded stock of the said goods. He stated that it is implied that the clearance of the same without payment of duty and accordingly paid the duty on 65.903 M.T. - the Director of the appellant company admitted that the goods were cleared without payment of duty. Hence, the extended period of limitation can be invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal dated 19.04.2016 modified the adjudication order so far as reduced the penalty to ₹ 1,00,054/- equal to the Central Excise duty in excess stock of 46.257 MT of seized goods. The appellant filed Appeal No.E/76305/16 against the said order. Mobile Phone used by ShriDinesh Adukia, Director of the appellant company, was found to store some text message communication. The said Mobile Phone was tendered by the Director of the appellant company under temper proof seal for retrieval of the message stored therein at a later stage of investigation. It was found unrecorded stock of 112.16 MT of M.S.Ingot in the said mobile phone. 3. A Show Cause Notice dated 07.02.2012 was issued to the appellant and its Director proposing demand of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incomplete. 7. I find that the Manager of the appellant Company, in his statement dated 10.02.2009, had accepted the excess stock of 46.257 MT of finished goods lying in their factory. It is noticed that the Central Excise Officers, detected the excess stock after taking into account the clearances from 01.02.2009 to 09.02.2009 and further taking closing stock as on 31.01.2009. It is apparent from the face of the record that the stock register was written upto 31.01.2009. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that had the appellant had any bonafide intention, they would have entered the said excess stock in their Daily Stock report, if not in DSA. Thus, the appellant had not recorded the excess quantity of stock in their record. Hence, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
