9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck and hence confiscation of the excess stock and imposition of penalty of this amount appears to be justified. In other three cases the alleged excess is less than 5% and in my prima facie view variation between the actual weight and the weight ascertained on average basis to this extent is possible. Therefore in these cases, the allegation of non-accounted of finished goods does not appear to be sustainable. Conditional stay granted. - Appeal No. E/2214-2221/2012- EX[SM] - STAY ORDER NO.59447-59454/2013 - Dated:- 8-10-2013 - Sh. Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant : Sh. Jatin Singhal, Advocate For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjay Jain, AR ORDER PER RAKESH KUMAR:- The Shivangi Estate Ltd., Pithampur, M/s. Jaideep Is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arate orders-in-original, ordered confiscation of the excess stock with option to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and besides this, also imposed penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules on each of the appellant company as well as its Director/ Manager. On appeals being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) by a common order-in-appeal dt. 25.04.12 upheld the Assistant Commissioner s order without any modification. Against this order of Commissioner (Appeals), these eight appeals have been filed along with stay applications. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay application. 3. Sh. Jitin Singhal, learned counsel for the appellants, pleaded that as is clear from the facts narrate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... average weight of each size of channels and angles and the variation is only 1.09%, allegation of clandestine removal based on shortage determine on this basis is not sustainable, that alleged excess, while in case of Shivangi Estate Ltd. is 25%, the alleged excess in other cases is less than 5% which could be due to determination of weight on average basis. He, therefore, pleaded that the appellant have strong prima facie case in their favour and hence the requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat Credit demand, interest thereon and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeals and recovery thereof may be stayed. 4. Sh. Sanjay Jain, the learned DR, opposed the stay applications by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three cases the alleged excess is less than 5% and in my prima facie view variation between the actual weight and the weight ascertained on average basis to this extent is possible. Therefore in these cases, the allegation of non-accounted of finished goods does not appear to be sustainable. 7. In view of the above discussions, while the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty in case of M/s. Jaideep Ispat And Alloys Pvt. Ltd.-(Unit-I) - Sh. Satyendra Singh ,Manager, M/s. Moira Steels Ltd. Sh. H.N.Singh Manager M/s. Jaideep Ispat And Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Unit-III and its manager Sh. H.N. Singh is waived for hearing of their appeal and recovery thereof is stayed till the disposal of the appeal, so far as, the appeal filed by M/s. Shivangi Es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
