TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (5) TMI 524
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was imposed on Shri D.R. Lahori, Managing Director of the said firm. 2. The appellants M/s. Shree Extrusions Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture of brass rods, wire, profile etc., falling under Chapter 74 of the Central Excise Act. The appellant's factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 27-3-99 when 17,943 Kgs of billets were seized by the Central Excise Officers and were handed over to the appellants under Supratnama. The present proceedings does not relate to the said seizure. However, subsequently the appellant's factory was again visited on 4-7-2000 and various checks were conducted. On physical verification, stock of the finished products lying in the factory compared with RG-1 register was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 3. I have heard Shri P.V. Sheth, ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Shri U.H. Jadhav, ld. DR. for the Revenue. 4. It has been strongly contended that immediately after the visit of the officer and detection of the shortages, a protest was filed before the Commissioner of Central Excise vide their letter dated 8-7-2000, detailing therein that the stock of billets lying on the floor of the factory was not taken into account, which has resulted in shortage of the billets. Statement of Shri Kadecha was also retracted by submitting that the same was recorded under duress. Ld. Advocate has also submitted that a case of clandestine removal cannot be established on the sole ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being faced by them. However, I do not find any merits in the above contention of the appellants. Shri Kadecha in his statement given on the spot has very clearly agreed that the quantity of billets seized on 27-3-99 and handed over to them have already been consumed in their factory for manufacture of excisable finished goods for which no entry was made in RG-1 register. The goods having been handed over to the appellants after the seizure, they were under a legal obligation to produce the same as and when called for by the department. Non availability of the said goods on the date of subsequent visit of the officers in the factory, read along with the statement of their authorised representative fully establishes that the goods have been ....