9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent : S. P. Kesarwani,Vks Raghuvanshi ORDER 1. Heard Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned Counsel for appellant and Sri Krishna Agrawal for respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 35-G of Central Excise Act has arisen from judgment and order dated 27.7.2009 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 3. The appeal was admitted on the following two substantial q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removal of molasses for open market sale inasmuch as no shortage of molasses was found so as to make appellant responsible in any manner. 5. We find from record that Central Excise Officer when checked storage tanks no. 1 and 2 by dip reading method in presence of Chief Chemist of appellant's factory and molasses clerk, found a huge shortage vis-a-vis the quantity determined by dip reading me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by appellant by adducing any evidence whatsoever, thus, to suggest that Revenue did not adduce any evidence to show clandestine removal is misconceived. When a fact is admitted by a party but it attempts to explain the same, onus lie upon such party to prove such explanation. In the present case, shortage in molasses was admitted by appellant but it tried to explain that it was on account of fau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant contended that shortage might be due to some fault of employee, the factum that it was not within his knowledge, consent or approval was also to be proved by appellant. Even otherwise, if shortage was due to some negligence on the part of employee, the employee is also an agent of appellant, for any act committed by employee, appellant, being principal is responsible. 7. Hence in present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
