9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stockyard is more than the quantity received from the steel plant. But this difference can be due to various reasons like difference in weighing scales and product mix up and just from this difference, it cannot be presumed that the concerned steel plants had cleared the alleged excess quantity without payment of duty. - Order not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.1665 of 2006 - FINAL ORDER NO:51329/2014 - Dated:- 4-3-2014 - Mr. G. Raghuram and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Yashpal Sharma, DR JUDGEMENT Per Rakesh Kumar: The facts leading to filing of this appeal are, in brief, as under:- 2. The appellant, a Public Secto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1944 read with Section 11D along with interest thereon under Section 11 AB and also for imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q. This show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur vide order-in-original dated 14.2.2006 by which the total demand of ₹ 79,93,944/- in respect of excess receipt of four products was confirmed against the steel plants along with interest and besides this, penalties were imposed on each steel plant as well as on the appellant company under Rule 173Q. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed. Though this appeal had, initially, been rejected for want of clearance from the Committee of Dispute vide Final Order dated 26.12.2006, on restoration applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst shortages, the net excess would be negligible, that no interest under Section 11 AB is payable as even if this amount is treated as duty, the provisions of Section 11 AB cannot be applied as the demand pertains to the period from June, 1992 to March, 1995 while Section 11 AB had been introduced w.e.f. September, 1996, that in the circumstances of the case, there is absolutely no justification for imposition of penalty on the appellant and that in view of the above submissions, the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. Shri Yashpal Sharma, ld. Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions and perused the records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the products and that if the excess quantity in respect of the certain items is adjusted against the alleged shortages in respect of other products, the net excess would be negligible. We hold that there is merit in the contention of the appellant. The entire case of the department against the appellant is based on the stock taking records at the BSO, Bhilai which mentioned excess receipt in respect of certain steel products received from certain steel plants i.e. in respect of certain steel products received from certain steel plants, the quantity sold as per the records of the stockyard is more than the quantity received from the steel plant. But this difference can be due to various reasons like difference in weighing scales and product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
