9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. There was an inspection in the manufacturing premises on 7 March, 2014, wherein the Director Shri Vinay Mittal produced the records etc., for verification. In the course of inspection, physical verification of the stock of finished goods and raw materials was done. The stock of raw materials was found tallied with the stock in the books of accounts. However, the officers found some excess finished goods as against recorded balance in RG-1 register. The calculation of such excess is contained in Annexure-A to the Panchnama. According to Revenue the summary of Annexure-A to the Panchnama, is as follows: - Table of Goods found Excess and Duty payable Sr. No. Name of commodity Quan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers of diesel engines, 46 numbers of pump sets, 124 numbers of water pumps, 38 numbers of alternator valued at Rs. 26,96,000/- found in excess, under Rule 25 of CER, 2002 with further proposal to impose penalty under Rule 25 read with Section 11 AC of the Act. 4. In response to the show cause notice the appellant appeared and explained the stock of finished goods by preparing a chart showing opening balance as per RG-1, days production as per RG-1, used for other purpose (for other machine like pump set, generator etc.,) closing balance which tallied with the closing balance found by the officers at the time of physical verification and further there was no excess or shortage. The appellant further explained that 46 8HP diesel engines were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods were recorded in the column meant for opening balance and the figures meant for opening balance column shifted in the column of day's production. This is a simple mistake of setting in the computer and due to oversight the same as happened." Further observing that this mistake in the preparation of physical verification report cannot affect the result of verification and cannot be a basis to challenge the whole process. Accordingly, he was pleased to reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 6,74,000/- to Rs. 5 lakhs and reduce the penalty from Rs. 2,17,536/- to Rs. 1 lakhs. 5. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant have urged that there was no real discrepancy and/or excessive goods in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
