9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises of the appellants, on 10-1-96 and authority found finished goods 25.389 M.T. of steel ingots short. The officers again visited the appellants factory premises again found 50.0 M.T. of MS ingots physically against the recorded balance of 402.389 M.T. of ingots in RG-I. Hence total shortage of 352.389 was registered and a show cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding the duty on such short found finished goods and penalty was sought to be imposed. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty on the appellants. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the appellant by way of remand, directing the adjudicating authority to consider the case afresh. The adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant, in their statements, which were recorded on separates dates. Having given them ample opportunity to explain the shortage, the appellant have failed and hence there is no reason to interfere in the order-in-appeal. He further submits that the adjudication is done by the proper authority despite the fact that the SCN is issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. For this proposition, he relies upon the case law of Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 339 (S.C.). 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. I find from the records that the show cause notice is indeed issued by the Superintendent (Preventive) of Central Excise, Varanasi Division demanding the duty under Rule 9( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1944. It is to be noted that, the written demand as envisaged in the said Rule 9(2), would mean the confirmed demand. It cannot be equated to a show cause notice, as show cause notice, as in itself is a show cause notice and not a demand. A show cause to a manufacturer only alleges the violations of the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder and directs the manufacturer or producer to defend the allegations. The mere issue of the SCN in itself will not constitute that it is confirmed demand under Central Excise provisions, it merely indicates that an specified amount is recoverable from the noticee. Subsequent adjudication proceeding confirms the demand or set aside the demand in SCN. It is said to by a confirmed demand only wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant to take up the wake up call on 10-1-1996 and reconcile the records and intimate the department the correct status, instead, they let the matters go from bad to worse. The argument of the appellant, that, the finished goods i.e. M.S. ingots were lying under the scrap, seems to be far fetched one, as, no prudent businessman, howsoever negligent he may be, allow any one to dump scrap material on the finished goods that also in his own factory. 8. I find that the appellant, have not put forth any proper explanation for the shortages of finished goods, as noticed by the authorities during their visit. 9. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The appeal stands dismissed. (Pronounced on 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
