TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the demand of duty on goods found short in stock taking and on clearances recorded in a slip pad recovered from the premises is sustainable; (ii) Whether the demand based on the notebook recovered from the broker is sustainable; (iii) Whether penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed on the director.
Issue (i): Demand of duty on shortage found during stock taking (MS ingots and billets) and on clearances recorded in the slip pad recovered from the appellant's premises.
Analysis: The stock taking was conducted under a panchnama in the presence of the appellant's representatives who expressed satisfaction at the method. The method of taking stock by sampling and multiplication is an accepted industry practice for iron and steel products. The slip pad was recovered from the appellant's premises and recorded clearances in excess of issued invoices for specified dates; the slip pad, though not stating the year, was recovered during the panchnama and no contrary evidence or assertion as to a different year was offered. Admitted facts and documents recovered from the premises were relied upon to establish clandestine removals.
Conclusion: Demand of duty on goods found short in stock taking and on clearances recorded in the slip pad is upheld in favour of the revenue to the extent quantified in the order.
Issue (ii): Demand of duty based on the notebook recovered from the broker (M/s. Bajrang Enterprises).
Analysis: The notebook was recovered from the broker's premises and the broker's statement implicated the appellant, but the Commissioner did not admit the broker's statement in evidence following the procedure under section 9D of the Act. The notebook therefore lacked the necessary evidentiary foundation without the properly admitted statement and the appellant had opportunities for cross-examination which were not availed.
Conclusion: Demand of duty based on the broker's notebook is not sustained and is set aside.
Issue (iii): Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the director.
Analysis: Rule 26 penalises persons dealing with excisable goods liable to confiscation under Rule 25. In the present case no goods were confiscated; the statutory conditions for invoking Rule 26 were therefore not satisfied. The mandatory penalty under section 11AC was reduced corresponding to the demands upheld and the individual penalty under Rule 26 was examined against the absence of confiscation.
Conclusion: Penalty imposed on the director under Rule 26 is set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeal against the demand is partly allowed by upholding demands based on stock shortage and the slip pad while setting aside the demand founded on the broker's notebook; the appeal against the director's penalty is allowed and the penalty is set aside. Consequential reliefs are granted if any.
Ratio Decidendi: Where stock shortage is established by a panchnama taken in the presence of the party and a document recovered from the party's premises shows clearances in excess of invoices, such evidence can sustain a demand for clandestine removal; by contrast, documents recovered from third parties require proper evidentiary admission (including compliance with section 9D) and, absent confiscation, Rule 26 cannot be invoked to impose penalty on third persons.
TaxTMI 
