2009 (7) TMI 284

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Respondent. [Order]. - Heard learned D.R. on behalf of the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. 2. After hearing learned D.R. and on perusal of the records, I find that the respondents are engaged in manufacture of M.S. Bars and Structures classifiable under sub-headings 7214.90 and 7216.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 15-9-2004 Central Excise ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sioner (Appeals). 3. Learned D.R. submits that the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). He submits that representative of the respondents failed to explain the reason for shortage. It is presumed that the goods were cleared clan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case of CCE, Ludhiana v. Omkar Steel Tubes (P) Ltd., reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 200 (P&H) held that penalty would be imposable as long as various elements envisaged under Section 11AC are satisfied including mens rea. In the said case representative of the assessee failed to furnish the reasoning for shortage and the original authority imposed penalty of equal amount on the basis of statement.....