9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entries of 23-5-96. From the above facts and circumstances, it is very clear that the seized goods found in the truck were duty discharged goods and not liable for confiscation. The lower authorities have brushed aside these protest on the ground that the appellants representatives have agreed to the correctness of the stock verification. To my mind, I find that the appellants contention that there can be error in eye estimation of the physical stock seems to be correct. I find that the authorities have calculated a shortage of 19.620 M.T. out of the recorded stock of 1042.715 M.T. against physical stock of 1023.093 M.T. The shortage in terms of percentage works out about 1.91% of the total stock. This may be also due to the fact that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the officers found shortage of the finished goods and raw materials, vis-a-vis recorded balance in RG 1. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation of the seized goods, and demand of duty on the shortage of the finished goods. The appellant contested the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority, in his order in original confiscated the seized goods and imposed redemption fine, and confirmed the demand on the finished goods found short and also imposed penalty on the appellants. The appellants appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed and the order-in-original was upheld with no relief to the appellants. Hence this appeal. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submit that the seizure of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized I find that the appellant s contention that the invoice No. 235, dated 23-5-96 was prepared but the driver of the vehicle had forgotten to collect the duty paying documents seems to correct due to the reason that on perusal of the invoice I find that the invoice was prepared on 23-5-96 at 14.05 Hrs., the vehicle Registration number mentioned is MKJ-8711, which is the same as of the vehicle intercepted and the duty paying documents has Indicated the date and time of removal as 23-5-96 at 2000 Hrs. The duty paying document also bears the name and address of the consignee and above all, the debit particulars are also mentioned on the invoice which reads as Debit entry in RG 23A Part II No. 274, dated 23-5-96. I find that in RG 23A Part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation was conducted. Since there are no weighment records attached to the show cause notice or to the stock verification report, it is to be concluded that the physical stock verification has been done on eye estimation. The appellants have been from the adjudicating stage contesting that eye estimation of such a huge quantity of M.S. bars and miss rolls could lead to error and hence there is no shortage of finished goods. The lower authorities have brushed aside these protest on the ground that the appellants representatives have agreed to the correctness of the stock verification. To my mind, I find that the appellants contention that there can be error in eye estimation of the physical stock seems to be correct. I find that the authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
