9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority has found that there was no cogent evidence before him to appreciate that the shortage has been rightly worked out mathematically. Estimation is not substitute to the mathematical precision when method of inventory taken is challengeable. - There was no circumstantial evidence to appreciate imposition of penalty along with confiscation. Penalty u/r 10 - When the appellate authority foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appearing counsel, Tribunal passed its order dated 23-10-2009. Consequently, further deposit was unwarranted. This averment appears to be correct when verification of the application is done by the Counsel on behalf of the appellant. But the verification is undated. However, taking that into view, Misc. application stands disposed without further direction. 2. The matter has been listed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority considered it proper to impose penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The respondent is not in appeal. Revenue is aggrieved by first appellate order. Principal grievance of the Revenue is that confiscation was warranted. So also it is grievance of the Revenue that penalties imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 25 was justified. 4. Learned DR supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order on this count. 8. So far as shortage of stock is concerned the authority has found that there was no cogent evidence before him to appreciate that the shortage has been rightly worked out mathematically. Estimation is not substitute to the mathematical precision when method of inventory taken is challengeable. Appellate Authority has brought out such aspect in Para 6 of the order. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
