2010 (2) TMI 995

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Respondent. ORDER Ld. DR Shri Baig appearing for Revenue submits that when the investigation resulted in shortage of stock, the appellant came forward to deposit the duty element. Ld. Adjudicating Authority below imposed penalty of Rs. 2,05,272/- under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 by a detailed order he passed in page-4, 5 & 6 of the order-in-original. The assessee could not expl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....judicating Authority in paragraph-18 of order-in-original has described how the shortage of stock emerged. He also found that the assessee could not explain the reasons of shortage. Rather the assessee admitted to pay the duty. When no explanation came forward for meeting scrutiny of Revenue and manner of stock taking remained undisputed, that speaks against the assessee about its modus operandi. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....physical verification proves against the assessee in absence of substantial pleading backed by evidence. This is sufficient to impose penalty on the appellant. Shri Maheshwari being authorised representative and he failed to explain how the stock was found short and did not lead any evidence to prove his innocence, he also deserves to be penalised under law. 5. When imposition of penalty comes ....