9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I agree with the submissions of the Ld. Advocate that non-maintenance of proper records by the factory supervisor of the appellant has resulted in shortage/ excess in the stock of the goods. However considering the fact that the appellant has not maintained proper records, which is statutorily required to be maintained, I am of the view that the appellant is liable to pay the redemption fine and the penalty imposed by the authorities below. However considering the gravity of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules is reduced to ₹ 20,000/- and penalty imposed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is reduced to ₹ 25,000 - redemption fine ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c Soda Lime, Sodium Sulphate etc. there were shortages. On the basis of the shortage/ excess quantity of goods detected by the Preventive Unit, statements were recorded from the appellant. The appellant voluntarily deposited the duty attributable to the shortage of Kraft paper and the cenvatable raw materials and intimated the Department regarding such deposit. 1.3 Subsequent to deposit of the duty amount, the Department initiated Show Cause Proceedings against the appellant, which culminated in the adjudication order dated 15.02.2011, wherein stock of quoted Duplex boards found in excess, was confiscated and option was given for redeeming the same on payment of ₹ 2 Lakhs as redemption fine. Besides, Central Excise duty demand has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission that since the production supervisor has not maintained the records timely, the discrepancy in the finished goods and the raw material was noticed. He further submits that since the shortage is very insignificant, in comparison to the material handed by the appellant, the quantum of redemption fine and the penalty imposed by the lower authority is not in conformity with the legal provisions. He further submits that the appellant had deposited the duty attributable to the shortage quantity of finished goods and inputs, on bonafide belief that the amount is very small and the appellant was not interested in agitating the issue. 3. Countering the submissions of the Ld. Advocate for appellant, Sh. R.K. Mishra, the Ld. DR for the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records, which is statutorily required to be maintained, I am of the view that the appellant is liable to pay the redemption fine and the penalty imposed by the authorities below. However considering the gravity of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules is reduced to ₹ 20,000/- and penalty imposed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is reduced to ₹ 25,000/-.I am also of the view that the redemption fine can also be reduced to ₹ 67,441/- i.e. equal to the Central Excise duty payable on removal of impugned goods. 6. In view of above, the impugned order is set aside the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of reducing the quant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
