2009 (12) TMI 752

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Khanna, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Appeal No. E/2748/07 is by M/s. Bhupendra Steels (P) Ltd. and Appeal No. E/2658/07 is by Shri Ranjan Ghai, Director of the company. Both these appeals arise out of the order in appeal No. 68-67/CE/APPL/DLH-IV/2007 dated 2-7-2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the officers of D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order of the original authority. 4. Learned Advocate submits that the stock taking was not done properly; the stock of scrap lying scattered over the factory was not taken into account; even if the stock was held to be in excess, the inference made that there was intention to clear them clandestinely was not justified; as the goods were still lying in the factory premises, there are no ingredie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e removal cannot be found fault with. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. Admittedly, there was excess stock of 96.493 MT of finished goods valued over Rs. 25 lakhs and the appellant Director was not able to furnish the reason for non-accountal of the goods. In fact, in respect of steel ingots as against the recorded balance of 27.395 MT, the stock found was as high ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re, the penalty imposed on the appellant company Section 25 is not justified. Considering the fact that it was a clear and established case of improper accounting, penalty imposed is converted into penalty under Rule 27 and accordingly, reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. 7. As regards the penalty on the appellant Director, no specific allegation on his role has been made and consequently, there is no find....