9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots and M.S. Castings at their factory on 5-5-2006. The Central Excise Officers visited the respondent s factory and conducted stock verification. The said officers ascertained shortage of finished goods involving central excise duty of Rs. 1,59,899/-. The respondents immediately deposited the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no material of clandestine removal of the goods and penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is not warranted. He relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Omkar Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 200 (P H). 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the shortage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and ultimately upheld by the Hon ble High Court. 5. In view of that, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is not justified. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Cross objections are di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
