9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f raw materials tallied with the recorded stock in RG-23A Part I register and Form-IV register, the actual stock of finished goods, viz. acid slurry and spent acid did not tally with their respective stocks recorded in the RG-I register. These finished goods were found in short. The shortages found in respect of acid slurry and spent acid were to the extent of 5.100 MTs. and 3.981 MTs. respectively. The appellants who were present at the time of the stock verification admitted the shortages and paid the Central Excise duty on the quantities of finished goods found in short amounting to Rs. 27,880/- as per PLA Entry No. 199, dated 27-1-1998. They also waived show-cause notice and personal hearing. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Section 11-A for recovery of duty short-levied or non-levied and that a waiver of such notice has no significance in law. I have perused the text of the said decision of the Learned Single Member. The facts of the case have not been mentioned or discussed by the Tribunal in that case. Therefore, I am not in a position to apply the cited decision to the facts of the present case. 4. On a careful reading of Section 11A, I note that that Section requires the Department to issue a show-cause notice for recovery of Central Excise duty short-levied, short-paid etc. The said Section casts a duty on the Department to issue show-cause notice for demanding Central Excise duty. Corresponding to such duty the assessee has a right. This right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing. Moreover, they were heard by the lower appellate authority before that authority passed the impugned order. In such circumstances, I am unable to find anything in the cited decision to support the appellants' case. 7. Learned Advocate has also reiterated all the other grounds of the appeal on merits. He has also cited before me the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Tinplate Company of India Limited [1996 (87) E.L.T. 589 (S.C.)]. That decision was rendered in a Customs matter. The question which arose before the Apex Court was whether issue of show-cause notice under Section 28(1) (b) of the Customs Act was mandatory or not. Since no parallel has been drawn before me between Section 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
