2005 (12) TMI 361

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er. 2.  The assessee is the manufacturer of PVC pipes, which are liable to Central Excise duty. On 28-7-98, the Officers of the Central Excise carried out a stock taking in the appellant's factory. The shortages of inputs and finished products were noticed. It is seen that a copy of stock taking report was also given to the assessee representative. 3. Show cause notice dated 22-1-99 was issued proposing to recover duty in respect of finished products found short as well as to recover the Modvat credit taken in respect of the inputs found short. A specific charge made in the notice was that the appellant had cleared two consignments under the same invoice and verification had shown that Central Excise duty was discharged only....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ents removed under the same invoice number. He also set aside the penalty on Shri Tola Ram Jain. The Revenue is aggrieved by the reduction in the duty demand and setting aside the penalty on Shri Tola Ram Jain. The appeal of the assessee is directed against the duty demand of about Rs. 19,000/- and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- in regard to the repeat clearance of consignments under the same invoice number. 7. We perused the record and heard both sides extensively. We may first take up the appeal of the assessee with regard to the duty demand of about Rs. 19, 000/-. We find that, under the same invoice number, the assessee cleared two consignments, while discharging duty liability in respect of only one consignment. Evasion of duty is mad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Revenue that the findings of the Commissioner are not sustainable. An eight months later subsequent stocktaking and the result of the same does not in any way prove that the results of the earlier stocktaking were erroneous. The objections pointed out by the assessee against the stocktaking also cannot find acceptance in the absence of specific errors being pointed out. If cut pieces had not been taken into account, the assessee could have pointed out the quantities involved. Similarly, if there was an error in the identification of finished goods or raw materials, the same should have been pointed out in the letter written immediately after the stocktaking. In the absence of specific objections, the Revenue authorities could not have ac....