2008 (4) TMI 604

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Respondent No. l Company is engaged in the manufacture of forgings of spare parts, accessories, components of motor vehicle classifiable under sub-heading No. 7326.19 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 23/24-12-2004, the Central Excise Officers visited the Respondents' facto....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as already deposited by the Respondent. He imposed penalty of equal amount of duty each on both the Respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the Adjudication Order and uphold the demand of Rs. 1,78,327/- and set aside the penalties on both the Respondents. Revenue filed these appeals against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....usal of the records, it is seen from the impugned order that the Central Excise Officers detected shortage of raw materials of 38.27 M.T. of rounds. The Respondent No. 2 admitted the shortage of inputs. He explained that the shortage must have accumulated over the period of time due to wrong reporting by some staff. The Respondent accepted to reverse the credit on the shortage of inputs. The Centr....