TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th penalty on appellant-2, the then director is assailed in these two appeals. 2. Brief facts of the case, as reveals from the appeal memo, is that appellants were engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. On the basis of information that appellants were indulged in irregular availment of CENVAT credit without actual receipt of goods against invoices to evade Central Excise duty and also clandestinely removing finished goods namely M.S. Ingots, officer of DGCEI, Mumbai Zonal Unit had conducted search and seizer operation on 8th & 9th of July, 2006 in the factory premises, carried out physical stock taking of raw materials and finished products and found shortage of 4679.411 MT of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e actually not received and credit was availed on the basis of documents receipt against which Rs. 43,00,000/- were already deposited but duty demand was made on the entire 4679.411 MT of raw material, shortage of which were primarily due to deposit of mud and pilferage. 4. Learned Authorised Representative for the respondent-department, on the other hand supported the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and argued that mud cannot constitute almost half of the weight of the disputed raw material and concerning pilferage, appellants had not produced any evidence before the adjudicating authority who gave his finding that respondent-department had meticulously weighed the raw material with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nor any record was produced to substantiate the same. 6. It is noticed that the valuation of raw material was also admitted by appellant-2 and the logic of taking standard valuation for all verities of raw material, as found from the Order-in-Original, was that appellant could not produce the procurement or cost price as no record was maintained by it. No reason is cited by the Director to exculpate himself from his legal liability and contention of appellants that principle of natural justice has not been followed is not maintainable as opportunity was granted to the appellants to reply to the show-cause and participate in the hearing but they failed to avail of the opportunities for personal reasons like family dispute which are unrela....