2008 (1) TMI 781

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Gautam, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Emulsifiers classifiable under sub-heading No. 3402.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. On 29th July, 2004, the Central Excise officers conducted stock verification at appellants factory and detected shortage and excess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntral Excise Rules, 2002. He also confiscated the excess goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 15,000/- upon the factory manager. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order inasmuch as, redemption fine and penalty were reduced to Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 10,000/- respectively and also set aside the penalty on the fact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d goods. He submits that the representative of the appellant could not properly explain on the shortage and excess of goods and therefore, payment of duty, imposition of penalty and redemption fine are correct. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of International Engg. & Mfg. Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 551. 5. After hearing both the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....removal of goods and therefore, Section  11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invoked. 6. Regarding the excess material, it is alleged in the show cause notice that the appellants did not maintain Central Excise records properly as required under Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the appellant explained the reasons as stated above. The learned Advocate relied upon t....