9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8/2013-SM - Final Order No. 06/2016-CHD - Dated:- 19-1-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant : Shri Gaurav Aggrawal, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Shri K. Poddar, AR ORDER The appellant are manufacturers of MS Mild Steel Bars from M.S. Ingots. Their factory was visited by the DGCEI officers on 26-3-2010 and stock of the raw material Ingots and finished products was checked in presence of the Managing Director of the appellant company. According to the department there was excess of 96.131 M.T. of raw material valued at ₹ 27.10 lakhs and similarly there was excess of 52.118 M.t. of finished product valued at ₹ 16.79 lakhs. Since, according to the department the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed a letter dated 27-3-2010, wherein he had stated that he had agreed to the weighment on account of pressure and that there is no excess or shortage of raw material or finished goods and the weight of the raw material and finished goods has been determined without actual weighment, that the officers were present in the factory on 26 th March 2010 for about 10 hours from 1230 hrs. to 2300 hrs. and the raw material as sell as finished goods were stacked in piles, that in all 88 different sizes of ingots and billets were stacked in piles and without segregating the billets and ingots, it was not possible to determine their weight even on average basis, that similarly the weighment of the finished goods and bars has also been determined by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had given the necessary information about weight of different types of billets/ingots as per their cross section dimensions and length, and the once the Managing Director had agreed to weighment by estimation, he cannot reverse his stand and say that weighment done was not correct. He also mentioned that retraction letter addressed to Senior Intelligence Officers had not been sent to DGCEI office. Therefore, the impugned order be upheld and the appeal be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. I find in this case that the investigating team remained in the factory of the appellant only around 10 hours and in the annexure to the show cause notice to the panchnama, they have take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
