9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the issue afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/10828-10831/2013-SM - A/10591-10594/2017 - Dated:- 8-3-2017 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) For Appellant: Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate For Respondent: Ms.Nitina Nagori, A.R. ORDER These appeals are filed against OIA No.SRP/217/Vapi/2012-13, dt.15.01.2013, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), C.Ex. S.Tax, Vapi. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. Armoured Wire/ Armoured Strips falling under Chapter 72 73 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On surprise visit to their factory on 01/02.03.2007, the officers noticed shortage in the stock of raw materials viz. M.S. Wire/Lead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification of the said statement of the Appellant, the concerned officer submitted the report to the Adjudicating Authority vide report dt.17.04.2012 (signed on 03.05.2012). It is the grievance of the Appellant that said report was neither taken into consideration by the Adjudicating Authority in passing the order nor a copy was endorsed to them. It is his further contention that even though they have submitted a copy of the said report obtained through RTI application before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the same was not accepted on the ground that the information was obtained on 10.07.2012. It is his contention that if the said report is taken into consideration, then it would be clear that there was no shortage of the raw materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid statement, it was directed to be scrutinized by the Adjudicating Authority. After due verification of the records, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, submitted a detailed report even though dt. 17.04,2012, but signed on 03.05.2012. The adjudication order was passed before receipt of the said report i.e. on 25.04.2012 without taking into consideration the said report. I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) instead of considering the implication of the said Report, on a flimsy ground rejected the same. I have no hesitation to hold that the report furnished by the field formation on the correctness of the statement of the Appellant reconciling the difference in the physical stock and book balance carries due weight in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
