2007 (3) TMI 612

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his appeal against the impugned order in so far as the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty of Rs. 19,486/- on the ground that the duty was deposited before issuance of show cause notice. 2. The learned authorized representative (DR) on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Central Excise Officer during their visit to the factory and verification of the stock detected the shortage of ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cts and circumstances of the case have observed that shortage is found in stock verification, there is no evidence that the alleged shortage of inputs is clandestinely removed. He further submits that the adjudicating authority disallowed the deemed credit of Rs. 1,55,978/- which was modified by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 54,780/-. But the respondent deposited the said amount before determi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ort during stock verification and therefore the respondent contravened the various provisions of the Rules. Accordingly, penalty is imposable for breach of rules under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the impugned order is set aside. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- and the appeal is otherwise rejected. (Order dictated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X