M/s Rathi Bars Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Tax (GST), Alwar
Central Excise
2017 (12) TMI 542 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 17-10-2017
E/51556/2017-EX[SM] – A/58155/2017-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
Shri R. K. Hasija, Advocate, for Appellant
Shri G. R. Singh, (AR), for Respondent
ORDER
Per: Anil Choudhary
The issue in this appeal is, whether (the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Billets & M.S. Bars) duly have rightly been levied on apparent shortage of stock.
2. According to Show Cause Notice issued, an investigation was carried out in the factory premises of the appellant on 16th February, 2012, wherein the physical stock verification of finished goods was conducted and physical stock verification of finished goods is as follows:-
Sr. No.
TMT Bars found on inspection
TMT Bars as per RG-1 Register
Remark of shortage (-)
1
628.615
MT 707.615
MT (-) 79.000 MT
On the b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nner of stock verification as well as stock verification report their unit manufactures TMT Bars ranging of size from 8mm to 32mm which carried different weights. They have not conducted verification of their stocks since long which has resulted in shortage in stock. Having agreed with the shortage of stock, they are going to deposit the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,19,784/- which was deposited by the assessee and a copy of e-receipt dated 20th February, 2012 under intimation to Revenue.
4. It appeared to Revenue that stock found short on physical verification was not available in the factory premises of the appellant/assessee and there was no plausible explanation to the said shortage and thus, there appeared a case of clandestine clearance by the appellant/assessee with intent to evade payment of duty. Further, it appeared to Revenue that the goods found short were liable to confiscation for violation of the Act and the Rules. Accordingly, the appellant/assessee was requir
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
estimation and no actual weighment was done. There is no detail of weighment annexed to the Panchnama. There is no evidence of clandestine clearance of manufacture. Further, the whole case of Revenue is based on Panchnama and the statement of Shri Sarjeet Singh Yadav – Factory Manager. Thus, under the facts and circumstances, the demand raised is not sustainable and fit to be set aside. Therefore, the whole Show Cause Notice is presumptive in nature and not based on the legal provisions.
7. Heard the ld. A. R. for Revenue, who relied on the impugned order.
8. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, I find from a copy of the Panchnama on record that there is no record of weighment, forming part of the Panchnama. Thus, I hold that the stock verification of the finished goods have been done by way of eye estimation only. Further there is variation of 10%, which is normal in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the stock verification of th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =