9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions - No penalty could be imposed on Managing Director. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellants. - E/76600-76601/2014 - FO/A/75189-75190/2017 - Dated:- 6-1-2017 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri K.P.Dey Shri Shyamal Dey, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Shri P.K. Choudhary 1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that M/s. Narsingh Ispat Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of Pig Iron classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. During the search of the office premises and factory on 22.06.2011, some statutory and private records were seized. Shortage of 242.370 MT of pig Iron and 145 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that the capacity of the weigh bridge is unable to weigh the stock within the specified time. Both the authorities below had not considered the explanation given by the appellant in respect of shortage of the goods. 4. The ld.A.R on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the Adjudication Order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. I find that the Adjudicating Authority though observed that eye estimation cannot be said to be 100% accurate, but it is also observed that in the present case, the difference in the stock was substantially large and cannot be ignored. The shortage between the physical and the RG-1 sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 22.06.2011. But the director of the appellant company, in his statement dt. 17.08.2011, had not given any explanation in respect of the shortage of large quantity. On the other hand, they have deposited the amount of ₹ 6,00,000/-. Therefore, the contention of the ld. Counsel regarding the shortage of the goods is without any substance. I agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. The ld. Counsel relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal. None of the case laws would be applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Regarding imposition of penalty on the appellant no.2, the Managing Director of the appellant company, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that nothing can move without his knowledge. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
