9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r had demanded the central excise duty of Rs. 2,30,000.00 besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the present respondents. 2. The said decision had been taken by the Dy. Collector on the ground that they had manufactured 250 MTS of steel ingots from iron and steel scrap which had not been accounted for in the statutory records. When the decision was challenged before the Collector (Appeals), that authority observed that there was no corroborative evidence to support the alleged shortage and that the departmental officers on cross-examination at the adjudication stage, had admitted that only visual assessment of the goods had been made. Further, no shortage of other inputs required for the manufacture of steel ingots, e.g. ferro mang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor (Appeals) that there was no corroborative evidence to support the alleged shortage. She had made a further observation that the departmental officers, on cross-examination, at the adjudication stage had admitted that there was only visual estimate of the goods. I find this observation is not based on the record as reflected in the Order-in-Original. Thus, in the order, the Dy. Collector had mentioned that the concerned Central Excise officers were cross-examined during the personal hearing on 18-8-1993 and that during the course of cross-examination, the Advocate himself confirmed about the manner in which the physical verification of all the raw materials was carried out by the Central Excise officers. This cannot be taken to mean that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been rightly rejected. A plea of such mistake does not pass muster as over a long period there cannot be a series of mistakes of same type showing less loss than the actuals. In the facts of the present case, reliance placed by the ld. DR on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case cited by him, would not however be appropriate. In that case there was a retraction by the person from his original increminating statement. That retraction was found to be not valid and the finding, based on the original statement, was upheld. In the present case, however, there is no retraction, but an alternative explanation by another persons which had not been found to be valid. Accordingly, I see that the Dy. Collector has adjudicated, the case appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
