2008 (6) TMI 517

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Meena, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Both the Appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, these are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Hot Rolled Products of Non-Alloy Steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Tariff Act, 1985. On 25-9-03, the Central Excise officers ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order in so far as the demand of duty of Rs. 17,760/- was set aside and penalty was reduced to Rs. 20,000/- under Section 11AC of the Act and Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Act. The assessee filed an appeal for setting aside the penalty. The Revenue filed appeal for enhancement of penalt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o material placed by the Revenue that the goods were cleared without payment of duty. The shortage was detected during stock verification. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Nachiketa Paper Ltd. reported in 2008 (225) E.L.T. 194 (P & H) = 2008 (86) RLT 225 (P & H) has held that there was shortage of goods and no evidence of clandestine removal or sale of goods, not a case of ....