9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Duty Penalty E/28206/2013 MYS-EXCUS-000-COM-001-13-14 dt. 29.08.2013 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 Rs.9,26,59,195/- Rs.9,26,59,195/- E/20430/2015 No.MYS-EXCUS-000-COM-001-12-14-15 dt. 2.12.2014 1.4.2012 to 31.03.2013 Rs.5,76,10,106/- Rs.5,76,10,106/- E/20463/2015 No.MYS-EXCUS-000-COM-011-14-15 dt. 2.12.2014 1.4.2011 to 31.03.2012 Rs.10,78,49,370/- Rs.10,78,49,370/- E/20464/2015 No.MYS-EXCUS-000-COM-010-14-15 dt. 2.12.2014 1.4.2010 to 31.03.2011 Rs.15,09,24,274/- Rs.15,09,24,274/- E/20174/2017 No.MYS-EXCUS-000-COM-GVK-08-16-17 dt.15.11.2016 1.4.2013 to 31.03.2014 Rs.7,52,28,312/- Rs.7,52,28,312/- M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., the appellants, are the manufacturers of Iron and Steel Products falling u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory/depots. Therefore, comparison of estimated production as recorded in ER1 and estimated physical stock of goods as on 31st March of each year amounts to comparison of two estimates which is inherently incorrect and leads to distorted conclusions. The excess/deficiency in stock was due to the fact that both production and physical stock taking was based on estimates whereas the clearances were based on actual weighment. Therefore, they claimed that there are no shortages as such attracting levy of excise duty. 3.1 She further claims that the Board had issued two circulars i.e., (i) CBEC Circular No.4/73/70/CS 6/1971 dated 12.4.1971 and (ii) CBEC Circular No.52/79 CS 6 dated 16.10.1979 laying down guidelines for condonation of losses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the ER-1 returns. It is an admitted fact that Order-in-Original No.8/2002 dated 30.10.2002 on similar facts and circumstances were issued to the appellant in their Mangalore unit by confirming the demand on the differential quantities. This order was set aside by this Tribunal vide Final Order No.1745/2005 dated 4.10.2005. It is also the fact that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore vide Order-in-Original No.1/CCE/2008 dated 31.3.2008 confirmed the demand on similar set of facts, which has been set aside vide Final Order No.20435/2023 dated 25.05.2023. 5.1 The appellant is a public sector undertaking and one of the large tax payers subject to regular audit by the officers from Central Excise and the Accountant General's depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were set aside by this Tribunal. Hence, the present appeals based on similar facts do not sustain. 5.3 Further, the appellant's in their own case reported in 2006 (200) ELT 229 (Tri.-Bang.), the Tribunal has held that the discrepancy between the RG1 stock and the physical stock are based on the estimated production and not on actual weighment. Comparison between two estimations is inherently inaccurate. Because of these shortages, if any, is inflated due to errors in taking opening balance and physical stock. Considering the practical difficulties in estimating the actual stock and in view of the submissions made by the appellant, the Tribunal had set aside the impugned order. 5.4 In the case of Rourkela Steel Plant (SAIL) vs. CCE, Bhuban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
