9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NT Per Achana Wadhwa: Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the order of the adjudicating authority, Revenue has filed the present appeal. I heard Shri R.K. Verma Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue and Ms. Neha Ld. Advocate for the respondent. 2. As per fact on record respondent are engaged in the manufacture of MS Bars falling under chapter 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) set aside the order of the original authority. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue. 4. Ongoing through the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), I find that the stock taking was done not by actually weighing the stock of the goods but based upon the average weight of various sizes of bundles and the number of pieces of bars contained in each bundles. She Revenue weighed one bundles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hortage of the goods were cleared by the respondent without payment of duty. Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has relied upon the Hon'ble High Court of Madras decision in case of ALAGAPPA CEMENT PVT. LTD. Vs. Cegat, Chennai 2010 (260) ELT 511 (Mad.) in support of its plea that the shortages of goods reflect upon the clandestine clearance of the same. 6. I have gone through the said decision of Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the present case are entirely different from the facts before the Honble Madras High Court in the above referred decision. In the present case admittedly there was no actual weighment in the stock or MS Bars of Ingot. Such stock-taking was done on the basis of assumption and the calculations made upon the basis of number of bundles available and the average weight of one bundle. It is well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
