2004 (8) TMI 590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who in the impugned order confirmed the order of the lower authority. 2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Aromatic Chemicals falling under Chapters 29 and 33 of CETA, 1985. The Central Excise officers conducted stock challenge of the raw material and finished goods lying in the factory. Certain shortages were n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... demanded. The lower original authority confirmed this duty and imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- the Commissioner (A) confirmed this order. 3. Heard both sides. Ld. Advocate argued that no proper panchnama was drawn nor weighment of the goods in question had been done while drawing the panchnama and therefore they desired to cross-examine of the panchas. It was not exceeded to by the lower authori .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... because no objection was raised by the management is not sufficient to presume clandestine removal. In the case of Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2003 (155) E.L.T. 161] the Tribunal held that duty cannot be demanded for shortages in stock unless proper weighment is done. He also relied on the case of Dulichand Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Exc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o have done in the presence of panchas witnesses. This is at best an extra precaution and not a legal requirement. In any case the stock challenge is done in the presence of the authorised representative of the assessee namely the Manager who certified that the figure shown in the annexure to the panchnama are correct. The Director of the company in his statement recorded after 4 months also accep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s presence was irregular. The appellants failed to explain as to what has happened to the goods found short. In the absence of plausible explanation the department was right in holding that the shortages were the result of clandestine removal of goods. The appellant nowhere has explained as to how the shortages occurred. The plea that stock challenge was not correct cannot be accepted at a later s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X