9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sh. Amit Jain Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocates for the appellant Sh. M. R. Sharma, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed against the order-in-original No.RPR/EXCUS/000/COM/023-060/2016 dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, Raipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and engaged in the manufacture of various steel items which attracts the Central Excise duty as per the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period 1997-98, on stock verification, it was found that there was a difference in the stock vis-a-v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s observed that- 5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The demand has been issued under Rule 223A covering a period of 13 years from 31.3.1998 to 31.3.2001. The Revenue has issued the show cause notice on the belief that Section 11A is not applicable for demands made under Rule 223A. The Department s view is not correct in terms of the judicial pronouncements cited by the appellants. There is no allegation that the appellants have removed goods in clandestine manner. Moreover, the stock taking was done by the appellants themselves. The departmental officers only associated with the same. Hence, the stock taking cannot be said to have been conducted in terms of Rule 223A of the C.E. Rules. In any case, the shortage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various stage of manufacture are not recorded in RG-1. Rejections are not recorded while accounting for quantity produced or issued in the form of sections and ingots. Shortage is inflated due to errors in taking opening balance as on 1.4.1998 and physical stock on 31.3.2001. Considering the practical difficulties, in estimating the actual stock and in view of the submissions made by the appellants, we find that the demand of duty made by the adjudicating authority cannot be sustained. Therefore, we allow the appeal with consequential relief . 7. By following our earlier order (supra), we find no reason to sustain the impugned order. The same is hereby set aside specially when the assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking and no individu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
