9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... APPELLANTS Sri S. Chakraborty, A.C. (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENTS Per DR.D.M. MISRA This is an appeal filed against order in appeal No. 58/Kol-V/2010 Dated 14.12.2010. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of copper wire and strip falling under Chapter 74 of the CETA, 1985 and they avail Cenvat credit on various inputs. The Appellant s factory was visited on 24/7/2008 and during the course of physical verification of stocks as on 24/7/2008, the officers noticed a shortage of 2612 Kgs. copper wires which are used as input in the manufacture of finished goods. Consequently, the statement of Shri Nikilesh Kotia, Director of the appellant was recorded on 24.07.2008. In his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of visit of the officer i.e. 24/07/2008 was found to be 2612 Kgs. but it was the book balance as on 22/7/2008 as per the Cenvat Credit Register. The advocate further submitted that the Director in his statement though immediately could not explain the shortage in the stock of inputs but mentioned that it is an inadvertent error which however was later explained while filing reply to the impugned notice. Further he has submitted that accepting the said shortage they had paid the duty involved on such shortage before issuance of the show cause notice and accordingly did not explain the reason for said shortage. He has further submitted that it was a mere accounting error which could not be explained to the visiting officers on 24/07/2008 but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 11AC read with Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. It is not in dispute that on the date of visit of officers, there was shortage of input of 2612 Kgs. of copper in comparison to the balance shown in the Cenvat Credit Register. The Director of the appellant has accepted the said shortage and explained that the same occurred inadvertently. Consequently, appellant had paid the duty on the said shortage. Show Cause Notice was issued after a period of ten months proposing penalty on the appellants. I find in their reply, the appellant had explained and accounted for the shortage of inputs noticed by the officers during the stock verification on 24.7.2008. The said explanation was neith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
