9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. These are two appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Appeal No. 365-366(KDT)CE/JPR-II/2000 dated 8-5-2000, against demand of Central Excise duty and imposition of penalty on account of shortage found in the quantity of marble slabs found on conducting of stock taking by the Central Excise Officers. 2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the duty amounting to Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mated by them under letter dated 28-2-1998; that there is absolutely nothing on record to show that they had actually removed the marble slabs which have been found short; that penalty imposed on Appellant company is on very high side; that no penalty is imposable on Shri Natwar Gehlot as no goods were found removed without payment of duty; that penalty under Rule 209A can be imposed only on the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sable on Shri Gehlot as he is looking after the Excise work. 4. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is not in dispute that the measurement of marble slabs was taken by the employee of the Appellant Company only. In his statement, recorded on the date of Verification of stock only, Shri Gehlot did not mention that the entire stock was verified on approximate weight. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT)] limit fixed therein [Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act] is the maximum limit and it is not mandatory that in all cases such maximum should be imposed as penalty. On the facts and circumstances of the present matter, I am of the view that interest of justice will be met if the Appellant Company is directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 8,000/- in total. I order accordingly. In view of the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
