Appellant's Penalty Affirmed for Shortage of Goods - Clandestine Removal Case

The Tribunal affirmed the penalty imposed on the appellant for the shortage of finished goods during physical verification, considering it a case of clandestine removal warranting a penalty equal to the duty amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.

---

---

Issues:
- Challenge to penalty imposed on the appellant for shortage of finished goods during physical verification.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by M/s Shree Sharma Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. The case involved a shortage of finished goods (M.S. bars) amounting to 131.600 MTs during a physical verification conducted by Central Excise officers. The Company Secretary cum authorised signatory admitted the shortage and explained that due to a holiday, invoices for clearances made on a specific date could not be prepared. Consequently, Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.5,50,195/- was deposited. A Show Cause Notice was issued, leading to the confirmation of duty and imposition of an equal penalty by the Joint Commissioner and subsequent rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).

During the proceedings, the appellant did not appear, and the Revenue's representative argued that the penalty was rightfully imposed due to the clandestine removal of goods. The main issue in the appeal was whether the penalty of Rs.5,50,195/- was justified. The Tribunal observed that the shortage of M.S. bars was admitted by the authorised signatory in his statement, where he acknowledged the clearance of goods without payment of duty. As per Section 11AC of the Act, penalty equal to the duty amount was deemed appropriate for clandestine removal. Upon reviewing the case records, the Tribunal found no fault in the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and upheld the penalty, consequently rejecting the appellant's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the penalty imposed on the appellant for the shortage of finished goods during the physical verification, considering it a case of clandestine removal warranting a penalty equal to the duty amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.

---