9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant themselves - There is no substance in the arguments of the appellant that no actual weighment was done by the Department during the course of verification – order upheld with regard to demand of duty as well as the confirmation of penalty against the appellant – Decided against Assessee. - APPEAL No.E/51/2011-EX[SM] - Final Order No.57475 - Dated:- 26-8-2013 - Mr. Sahab Singh, J. For the Appellant : Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri G. Dixit, DR JUDGEMENT Per Hon ble Mr. Sahab Singh : This appeal is filed by M/s. Jyoti Divya Fabrication Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellants) against the order-in-appeal No. 221-CE/GZB/2010, dated 27.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as already paid and also imposed penalty equivalent to the duty amount, i.e., 6,27,793/- on the appellant. Order-in-original was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order confirmed the same and rejected their appeal. The appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that in this case shortage was quantified on the basis of numbers of pipes and tubes thereafter number was multiplied by the sectional weight mentioned in the catalogue and on the basis of which the total quantity of 17.969 MT was arrived at. He submits that no actual weighment of goods was done by the Department and approximate weight of the quantity based on the number has been mentioned. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the goods were not actually weighed by the Department. 4. After hearing both the sides I find the issue involved in the present appeal is demand of duty on the goods found short during the course of physical verification by central excise officers. The duty involved on the goods has already been paid by the appellant and also appropriated by the lower authorities and penalty is imposed under Rule 25 of the Central excise Rules, 2002 on the appellant. The appellants are contesting the case on the ground that no physical weighment of the goods was done by the departmental officers and in absence of which no case of clandestine removal can be made against the appellant. I find that physical verification of the goods was done by the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
