9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant which it fails to prove. Tribunal, therefore, was justified in taking a view otherwise and against appellant. Question is answered against appellant. So far as question 1 is concerned, since shortage in physical verification, as already said and evident from record that same was not disputed by appellant, any verification by other authority at some other point of time, would not help appellant and, therefore, question 1 is also answered against appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 21 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2016 - Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal And Hon'ble Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, JJ. For the Appellant : Shakeel Ahmad For the Respondent : S. P. Kesarwani,Vks Raghuvanshi ORDER 1. Heard Sri Shakeel Ahmad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determined by dip reading method and one mentioned in the stock card and RG-1 maintained by appellant. Shortage had to be explained by appellant since it was only the appellant and it's agent, who were in the capacity to remove molasses. Appellant did not dispute actual shortage but tried to explain shortage in the grounds of appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) that shortage was due to some miscreant employees of the factory, who may have left the valve connected with the tank open and pipe line near molasses weighment tank. This explanation shows that shortage in molasses was not seriously disputed by appellant and instead it tried to explain that shortage was on account of some fault on the part of employees of appellant and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gligence 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, onus to prove that shortage was not on account of any objectionable conduct on the part of appellant, was upon appellant which it fails to prove. Tribunal, therefore, was justified in taking a view otherwise and against appellant. Question 2, therefore, is answered against appellant. 8. So far as question 1 is concerned, since shortage in physical verification, as already said and evident from record that same was not disputed by appellant, any verification by other authority at some other point of time, would not help appellant and, therefore, question 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
