1994 (9) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o imposing penalty of Rs. 500/- on the appellants. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots and rolled products in their Steel Foundry at Kanpur. On 30-1-1984 the Central Excise Officers visited the appellants' steel foundry for stock checking of steel ingots and other products. The RG 1 register shows 507.680 MT of steel ingots reflecting an excess of 35.630 MT. Its production of 23.100 MT of steel ingots was yet not entered in the RG 1 register. The officer estimated the stock of steel ingots by taking 50 pieces of steel ingots and weighed them in three lots. On the basis of weight of three lots so ascertained the total weight of stock on an average basis by taking steel ingots as 98 Kg, was arrived as 530.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be ordered only when there is actually clandestine removal and the case of New Polymer Industries v. CCE, reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 145 (Tribunal) in support of his contention that no penalty can be imposed when no duty is demanded. Ld. Advocate also submitted that the Collector (Appeals) had decided the case without giving them personal hearing but he does not press this point at this stage. 4. Ld. DR submitted that order-in-original in first para at page 35 of the paper book refers to physical verification conducted by the officers. He submitted that weight of steel is estimated through a general estimation and there is nominal fine of Rs. 1,000/- and penalty of Rs. 500/- only in this case and weight was actually admitted by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1990 (48) E.L.T. 394 (Tribunal) that human error in counting is not acceptable in spite of heavy stock lying in factory when verification sheet signed by officials. In that case Tribunal upheld the charge of clandestine removal on the basis of shortages found after actual stock verification. This however, was not the case here and facts are clearly distinguishable. In case of Goodyear India Ltd. (supra), the truck was intercepted at factory gate and discrepancies resulted in verifying those tyres, tubes and flaps numbering excess 831 valued at over Rs. 2 lakhs. Here the stocks were not estimated but were actually physically checked. The present case however, is not a case of error in accounting. It is rather a case of error in applying esti....