1997 (11) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....By the said Order-in-Original, the Dy. Collector had demanded the central excise duty of Rs. 2,30,000.00 besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the present respondents. 2. The said decision had been taken by the Dy. Collector on the ground that they had manufactured 250 MTS of steel ingots from iron and steel scrap which had not been accounted for in the statutory records. When the decision was challenged before the Collector (Appeals), that authority observed that there was no corroborative evidence to support the alleged shortage and that the departmental officers on cross-examination at the adjudication stage, had admitted that only visual assessment of the goods had been made. Further, no shortage of other inputs required....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the ld. DR and perused the record. I notice the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that there was no corroborative evidence to support the alleged shortage. She had made a further observation that the departmental officers, on cross-examination, at the adjudication stage had admitted that there was only visual estimate of the goods. I find this observation is not based on the record as reflected in the Order-in-Original. Thus, in the order, the Dy. Collector had mentioned that the concerned Central Excise officers were cross-examined during the personal hearing on 18-8-1993 and that during the course of cross-examination, the Advocate himself confirmed about the manner in which the physical verification of all the raw materials was carrie....