9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stified X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as shortage of 127.794 MT in the stock of waste paper. When the Visiting Officers enquired about these shortages, Shri Vijay Mittal, Director of the firm in his statement dated 18.2.2003 stated that he was not in a position to explain about the shortages as he was ill and was not regularly attending the factory. He further stated that in his absence some employees of his unit might have indulged in removal of finished goods without accounting for the same in the records, without payment of duty and without counting of raw material used in the manufacture of such finished goods. On further inquiry, Shri Vijay Mittal failed to reply as to whom these goods had been sold. Shri Vijay Mittal, however, admitted the fact of manufacture of 89.635 MT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The order of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in CEA No. 135 of 2005. This Court vide order dated 25.9.2006 set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. The observations made by this Court are as under: " We have already gone through the matter in our order dated 25.7.2006 in CEA No. 13 of 2005 [Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi III v. M/s Machino Montell (I) Limited and another 2006 (202) E.L.T. 398(P&H)=2006(4) S.T.R. 177(P&H)] and held that mere deposit before issuance of show cause notice was not conclusive for not imposing penalty and the matter had to be gone into on merits." 5. After remand, the Tribunal has again passed an order dated 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s me (sic) and appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any." 6. Ms. Naveender P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-revenue has argued that the Tribunal could not have ignored the admission made by Shri Vijay Mittal, Director of the assessee-respondent company, wherein he has conceded shortage of raw material. In support of her submission she preferred to cite judgments of the Tribunal in the cases of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Pushpanjali Steel Alloys P. Ltd., 2004 (166) ELT 59 (Tri.-Del.); Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Nabha Steels Ltd., 2004(169) ELT 0345 (Tri.-Del.); Prabhat Polycoaters v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat, 2002(147) ELT 701 (Tri.-Mumbai); and Sainson ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals) for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act and deleted the penalty. Therefore, we find no legal infirmity in the view taken and accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. The argument of learned counsel that the judgments delivered by the Tribunal in the cases of Pushpanjali Steel Alloys P. Ltd.(supra), Nabha Steels Ltd.(supra); Prabhat Polycoaters (supra) and Sainsons Paper Industries Ltd. (supra) have to be taken into account by this Court as precedents does not require any detailed consideration. The orders passed by the Tribunal do not constitute precedents to be cited before the High Courts because the Tribunals are necessarily the final Courts of recording the findings of facts. Moreover, the ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
