2005 (1) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mits that the demand is barred by limitation. In support of his contention, he relies on the following decisions : (i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Jsr. v. TISCO : 2001 (137) E.L.T. 571 (Tri. - Kolkata); (ii) Bharat Laundry : 1991 (54) E.L.T. 316 (G.O.I.). He further submits that the physical verification of stock was not conducted. The stock verification was done within 1.5 hour .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... this Bench has held as under : "Demand - Limitation - Deficiencies found in stock verification report - Provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 to apply - Erstwhile Rule 233A of Central Excise Rules, 1944." Therefore, the demand is time bar. 5. In the present case, no actual physical verification was done by the Anti Evasion Team. No actual weighments of the goods were done by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d for deciding the charge of clandestine removal. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Micro Forge (I) Pvt. Ltd. referred to above wherein the Tribunal has held as under : "Demand - Clandestine manufacture and removal - Shortage of finished goods - Proof of - Average weight of a single forging of each type taken and multiplied by number of pieces of relevant items (unit) - Stock positi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X