TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M.S. Chawla, Director of the appellant-company and two other witnesses. The shortage was found of 10 varieties of finished goods as per the Annexure to the Panchnama. Shri M.S. Chawla instantly paid the duty of Rs. 29,782.48 on the goods found short. In his statement given to the officers on the spot, Shri Chawla acknowledged the fact that the stock-taking was conducted in his presence as well as in the presence of independent witnesses. He also stated that the production of the day was not taken into account in the stock-taking process. Regarding the shortage, he could not explain then and there but offered to explain it after thorough study of the records. He further stated that he had voluntarily debited the duty on the goods found shor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rawn on 26-3-97 was not valid inasmuch as one of the witnesses (Shri Atul Sood) subsequently affirmed in an affidavit that any stock-taking of goods in the appellants' factory had not been conducted in his presence and that his signatures were tendered at the request of the departmental officers. Another infirmity of the stock-taking, according to Counsel, was that, though more than 1000 varieties of finished goods were lying in stock in the factory, the officers did not verify the quantity of each variety to detect shortage of any particular variety or varieties of goods vis-a-vis RG-1. Counsel further submitted that, though the lower appellate authority noted the denial of Shri Atul Sood, it did not examine the legal consequences thereof. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances, the decision taken by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) could only be upheld. In this connection, the DR relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India [1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.)]. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. In this case, the demand of duty was confirmed against the appellants on the basis of shortage of goods found in their factory on 26-3-97. The stock verification was conducted by officers of Central Excise, on that day, in the presence of Shri M.S. Chawla (Director of the Company) and of two other independent witnesses. The particulars of the above shortage of goods were recorded in the Annexure to the Panchnama drawn by the officers. The Director of the Company and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time. It was in the reply to the show cause notice that some sort of an explanation was offered for the first time, and that was to the effect that the goods were, in fact, lying in the factory and there was no shortage whatsoever. To say that there was no shortage of goods was no explanation of the admitted shortage. Such a statement was only in the nature of retraction of the statement made by the appellants on 26-3-97 in acceptance of the quantity of goods found short, and such a belated retraction cannot be accepted. In this connection, the ruling rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra (supra) is relevant. In that case, a confessional statement given by the petitioner to Customs officer was retracted within 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
