9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made, demand confirmed on shortages of ₹ 27,466/- is sustainable - demand upheld. Demand of ₹ 14,93,495/- on the raw material and capital goods seized on job workers premises as well as godown of the appellant - Held that:- If it is established on the basis of documents that the goods which were seized were brought back to the appellant’s factory and the same were used in the manufacture of final product which were cleared on payment of duty, then no demand shall exist. Consequently, no penalty will be imposable - this issue needs to be reconsidered on the basis of verification of the documents - matter on remand. Demand of ₹ 13,28,814/- based on LRs - principles of natural justice - Held that:- Except the trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing officers recovered the LRs against summon issued to the transporter on the basis of which the adjudicating authority contended that all these LRs are against the clandestine removal of the finished goods and duty of ₹ 13,82,814/- was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the order in original the appellant filed appeal before commissioner (appeals) which came to be rejected, therefore, the present appeal. 2. Sh. Mukund Chauhan Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the demand of ₹ 27,466/- is against shortage. He submits that the stock taking was not done properly, it was also only on eye estimation basis. There is no evidence of clandestine removal, therefore, demand of shortage amounting to ₹ 27, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, therefore, the demand was raised without application of mind. He submits that other than LRs, there is no evidence to support the charge of clandestine removal. He also submits that appellant have requested for cross-examination of the transporter as the LRs submitted by the transporter is 3rd party evidence, however the request was rejected by the adjudicating authority. 3. Sh. T.K. Sikdar Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. As regard the demand of ₹ 27,466/- on the shortage of finished goods, I find that this demand is based on the shortage found out dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntravened the provision regarding the procedure for movement of goods to the job worker and storage of goods outside the factory, appropriate penalty is imposable under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. This issue needs to be reconsidered on the basis of verification of the documents. 6. As regard the demand of ₹ 13,28,814/- based on LRs, I find that except the transporters LRs and statement, there is no other evidence. The LRs submitted by the transporters is a 3 rd party document which can only be relied upon after cross examine the said transporters. The request for the same was made by the appellant right from their defense reply but the same was not accepted by the adjudicating authority. Section 9D of Central Excise Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
