2009 (8) TMI 1011

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned Order whereby a demand of Rs. 2,38,571.00 is confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 2,41,571.00 is imposed in respect of the finished goods found short. 3. The Revenue Officials visited the factory premises of the appellant in August, 1999 and on verification, they found a shortage of 494 Kgs. of finished goods as compared to their RG-I Record.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned in the private records and the goods were found short. 4. Contention of the appellant is that the demand cannot be made on the basis of entries made in the private records. It is also submitted that everything was done by the Manager of the firm and the proprietor of the firm was not conversant with the day-to-day works. Therefore, whatever was stated before the Revenue Officials by the prop....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or of the appellant firm were never retracted. In this connection, the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M.R. Tobacco P. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 171 (Del.). Hence, Revenue's contention is that the demand was rightly made. 6. I find that in this case, the finished goods were found short in the factory at the time of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he present case, the facts are different from the above-cited decisions, as the shortage in this case, was found at the time of visit of the Revenue Officials and that had been admitted by the proprietor of the appellant firm, who agreed to pay the duty also. The private records were systematically maintained in this case in regard to the datewise clearances of the goods, names of the customers, i....