2009 (5) TMI 752

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ivastava, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.K. Das, Member (J)]. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pipes and Tubes classifiable under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1984. On 25-9-2001, the Central Excise Officers visited the appellants factory and conducted stock verification. The said officers detected .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2,18,274/- (i.e. equal amount of duty). Hence, the appellants filed this appeal. 2. Ld. Advocate submits that the shortage was detected during stock verification and the appellants voluntarily deposited the duty on the shortage. He further submits that the appellants factory was started during 2001 and due to lack of knowledge, they have cleared the branded goods under the cover of the invoices .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d. Advocate is not disputing the demand of duty, which they have already deposited. There is no materials available for clandestine removal of the goods. Hence, the penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, the demand of duty is upheld. The penalty is set aside. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (Order dictated pronounced in open court on 28 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X