2017 (12) TMI 542 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Clandestine removal – shortage of stock – 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? – validity of SCN – Held that: – from a copy of the Panchnama on record that there is no record of weighment, forming part of the Panchnama. Thus, 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 the finished goods has been done by way of eye estimation – SCN is vague and presumptive – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – E/51556/2017-EX[SM] – A/58155/2017-SM[BR] – Dated:- 17-10-2017 – 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 w
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
verification of goods were recorded. 3. The statement of Shri Sarjeet Singh Yadav, Factory Manager & Authorized Signatory was recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, who inter-alia stated that he has working since 1996 and looking after the work related to Excise, Sales Tax & Labour Departments. In his presence and two independent witness, visiting officers conducted physical stock verification of TMT Bars lying in the unit and on verification stock of TMT Bars was found short by 79.00 MT. He is in full agreement with the manner 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 ₹ 3,19,784/- which was deposited by the assessee and a copy of e
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Authority confirmed the proposed demand and further appropriated to impose equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred appeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who was pleased to uphold the order of the Assistant Commissioner dismissing the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant who has contended that the stock taking was conducted in a casual manner by way of eye 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 presum
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =