2005 (1) TMI 243 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Limitation period for demand
2. Lack of physical verification and weighment in stock assessment

Limitation period for demand:
The appellant contended that the demand is time-barred, citing precedents. The physical verification of stock was not conducted adequately, with no weighment slip provided despite request. Relying on a specific case law, the appellant argued that without proper weighment, duty liability cannot be established. The Anti Evasion Unit's visit and subsequent actions were scrutinized, leading to the conclusion that the demand is indeed time-barred.

Lack of physical verification and weighment in stock assessment:
The absence of actual physical verification and weighment by the authorities was highlighted. The stock assessment was based on eye estimation, lacking a clear basis for determining deficiencies. The method used was deemed insufficient for quantifying demands or proving clandestine removal. Citing a relevant case, it was emphasized that without actual physical weighment, allegations of stock shortage and illicit removal are not sustainable. The judgment favored the appellant, drawing parallels with a similar case and ultimately allowing the appeal with benefits to the appellants.