9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AC(1)(a) of the Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [ 2005 (2) TMI 141 - SUPREME COURT] , where the Court has held that for violation of the Rules, the appellant is undoubtedly liable to pay the penalty as prescribed under the said Rules. The Tribunal also in the case of Amtek Auto Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi [ 2000 (11) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] has also held that the penalty is warranted for contravention of the Rules. Hence, no interference is called for in the imposition of penalty on the appellant. Thus no interference is called for in the impugned decision and hence the same is affirmed - appeal dismissed. - HON BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Shri Rajnish Kumar Verma , Advocate for the appellant Shri Arun Sheoran , Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER BINU TAMTA : 1. The present appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal no.RPR- EXCUS-000-APP-116-22-23 dated 17.01.2023, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of central excise duty on account of shortage found in the raw material and the finished goods under Section 11A/11A(4) read with Section 174 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked proper authorization. The stock verification was based on estimation, not physical verification. Verification methods were inappropriate and not in line with mandated procedures. The stock verification process was hastily conducted and flawed. There is no evidence of clandestine transportation or sale of goods. The payment of duty before show cause notice issuance was under coercion. 5.2 That shortages cannot be assumed as clandestine removal without corroborative evidence. 5.3 That no comprehensive investigation was conducted to determine the nature of the alleged discrepancies relying on the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of CGST C.Excise Vs. Shah Foils Ltd. :2020 (372) ELT 632 (Gujarat), wherein it was held that onus to prove clandestine removal must be discharged by sufficient, cogent, and unimpeachable evidences. 5.4 The reliance solely on the initial statement of the Director, without further examination or verification, is insufficient as evidence. 5.5 The demand for short-found inputs and finished goods amounts to a double demand, which is unjustifiable. 5.6 The show cause notice was time barred. 5.7 That in the absence of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ama dated 12.04.2012, please explain the difference? Ans.: I am agree with the stock found during the course of physical verification and agreed to pay the duty involve on such shortage of stock as mentioned in the Panchnama dated 12.04.2012. I am debiting herewith an amount of Rs.13,15,617/- ( Cenvat Rs.12,77,298/- Education Cess Rs.25,546/-, Sec. Education Cess Rs.12,773/-) vide Journal Voucher No.01 dated 12.04.2012 from our Cenvat Credit Account. 9. There is no reason to ignore the statement recorded under Section 14 of the Act which has evidentiary values. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellant is trying to mix-up the issue of shortage in the raw material and the finished goods with the issue of clandestine removal of goods. The Adjudicating Authority has very consciously confirmed the demand only in respect of the shortage in stocks and dropped the demand relating to the clandestine removal of goods. Therefore, there is no reason to link the issue of clandestine removal with the present demand of central excise duty. In this regard, the decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Raipur Vs. G. P. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (368) ELT 76 (Chhattisgar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removal seems to be misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the case. The ratio of Anand Founders Engineers and Continental Cement Company (supra) have no applicability to the present case. The decision of the High Court in the above case has been affirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the special leave petition filed by G.P Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (368)ELT A 38 (SC) . The present case is squarely covered by the observations of the High Court in G.P Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (supra), as allegation under consideration is limited to shortage in the stock, which has been admitted by the Director of the company, and there is no explanation for such shortage by the appellant. 11. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the statement made by the Director was under threat, pressure and coercion, however, I do not find any merits in the submissions. Firstly, from the contents of the Panchnama, it is evident that the proceedings were held in a calm and cordial atmosphere and there was no pressure on Shri Ashish Aggarwal, which is evident from the fact that though he was requested for the personal search however, he politely denied it. The relevant para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Court further observed that ‗secrecy and stealth being its covering guards, it is impossible for the preventive department to unravel every link of the process. Many facts relating to this illicit business remain in its special or peculiar knowledge of the person concern. 14. Similarly, the challenge that the stock verification was not proper as it was based on eye estimation and not on physical verification and the same was conducted in a short span of time of six hours which is unpractical, has no substance as no such objection was taken at the time of stock verification, rather the Panchnama was accepted and duly signed by the appellant. Both the Authorities below have observed that the appellant has now taken this defence and, therefore, all these objections raised at this later stage has no legs to stand being an afterthought as no such issues were raised during the physical stock verification. The appellant is trying to cover-up their admission by taking technical glitches, however, there is no merit therein. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited several decisions holding that mere shortage cannot result in assumption of clandestine removal, however, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
