9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers of Central Excise Headquarters(Prev), Central Excise, Thane I, Commissionarate to the unit of the appellant on 28/3/2006, it was found excess stock of 61 MT of M.S. Ingots in the factory as against recorded stock in RG1 register. The said excess stock was found on stock verification by the officer in presence of the representative of the appellant and same was recorded under Panchanama. The said excess stock was seized and handed over to the appellant under supratnama on 28/3/2006. During the investigation, statement of Shri. Suresh Attarshingh Bundiwal, Director of the appellant company was recorded who accepted the excess stock of 61 MT of M.S. Ingots. The appellant on the said excess stock paid excise duty of Rs. 1,79,194/- thereafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made in the appeal memorandum as also record available. 3. On the other hand, Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asst. Commissioner (A.R.)appeared on behalf of the Revenue and reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that though the appellant made submissions before the lower authorities as well as before this Tribunal in the ground of appeal that method of stock taking was not proper therefore the confiscation of goods and consequences are not sustainable. In this regard he submits that while taking the stock of the goods in the factory premises of the appellant the representative of the appellant was present who signed the panchanama. As regard excess stock of 61 MT of M.S Ingots the appellant has not raised any objection on spot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done on average basis and actual weighment of entire stock was not done, therefore confiscation of goods is not justified. I find that whatsoever method was adopted by the Central Excise officers and as a result variations of stock was found. If the appellant is not satisfied with method of stock taking, they had liberty to dispute method and would have suggested other method of stock taking. However the appellant has not raised any such dispute. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, the excess stock found in the stock verification could not be disputed merely on verbal explanation. The appellant during the seizure of the goods could have represented for re-checking of the stock, which was not opted by the appellant. In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 179194/-to Rs. 25,000/-. As regard redemption fine, taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances I am of the view that redemption fine of Rs. 3,30,000/- is higher side therefore the redemption fine is reduced from Rs. 3,30,000/- to Rs. 2 lakhs. As the regard the Appeal No. E/213/10 of Shri. Suresh A. Bundiwal, Director of the appellant company, I find that since offence involved in this case is non-accountal of goods in the statutory records and maintenance of excise records is handled by the staff of the appellant company. The appellant, in my considered view merely for improper accounting of stock in the statutory records by the appellant's staff, Shri. Suresh A. Bundiwal can not be penalised under Rule 26. Therefore the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
