2009 (5) TMI 634

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e records. 2. Relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that on 26th August, 2005 Central Excise officers visited the appellants factory and conducted stock verification of finished goods as well as inputs. The said officers detected shortage of inputs involving central excise duty of Rs. 1,69,728/-. Authorized signatory of the appellant-company admitted the shortage and debited the duty on 31s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... H). 4. Learned D.R. submits that Commissioner (Appeals) has already reduced the penalty after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. He also submits that the appellants failed to explain the reason for shortage which implies clandestine removal of the goods. He also submits that the department is not required to establish clandestine removal by mathematical precision. 5. After .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sessee failed to furnish reason of shortage. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty, upheld by the Tribunal. Revenue filed appeal which was also dismissed by the Hon ble Court. It is revealed from the impugned order that Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the department could not adduce tangible evidence regarding alleged clandestine removal of goods. Therefore, there is no material to est .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X