9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retraction of statement or questioning the methodology of weighment can be made before the issue of Show Cause Notice so that Revenue can take appropriate measures for conducting additional investigations. As the stock-taking was done with the concurrence of the appellants, therefore, at a later stage, after completion of investigation and issue of Show Cause Notice, appellant cannot turn around and take a stand that stock-taking was inappropriately done. In view of the above the aspect of shortages of goods is established and the duty demand voluntarily paid by appellant No.1 without protest is required to be confirmed. So far as payment of interest on the confirmed demand is concerned, it is observed that shortage was detected on 12.08.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (Appellant No.2), who is the authorized signatory of Appellant No.1, was also recorded wherein he accepted the shortage of finished goods and agreed to pay the duty. That the entire amount of duty was deposited by the appellant on 12.08.2011 itself through e-payment. That subsequently a show cause notice was received by the Appellants by considering the shortages to be due to clandestine removal of the goods. It was the case of the ld.Advocate that the methodology of stock-taking was not correct. That such claim was made by the Appellant No.1 only after issue of Show Cause Notice during the course of adjudication. That First Appellate Authority has not considered their argument of improper stock-taking and the same has been brushed aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presence. That proper inventories were prepared during stock-taking which were also signed by Appellant No.2. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 5. The issue involved in the present case is whether certain shortages (95.790 MT) of sponge iron detected by the officers of Central Excise on 12.08.2011 during a joint physical stock verification were correct or not. Authorized signatory (Appellant No.2) was present during the course of such stock-taking and the method adopted and the duty liability was accepted by the Appellants. The duty involved on the shortages of finished goods was also paid on the same day without protest. The statement of the authorized signatory was not retracted at any stage and the method of stock-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants have relied upon several case laws on the issue of clandestine removal of the shortages detected and imposition of penalty. It is observed from the case law CCE, Kanpur v. Minakshi Castings [2011 (274) ELT 180 (All.)], that Hon ble High Court while deciding the issue of shortages of finished stock made the following observations :- 13. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that there is no material or evidence of any kind to support the findings, that there was clandestine removal, which did not tally with the physical stock. In substance it was found that there was shortage of finished goods. The shortage of finished goods, by itself could not unless it is related to clandestine removal of finished goods for which there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
