TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 1041
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir factory was visited by the jurisdictional central excise officers who checked the stock of the finished goods. Since there was no weighment facility in the factory and the Respondent expressed difficulty in arranging weighment of the goods from outside, it was agreed to determine the weight by weighing the representative samples from each lot of MS angles, MS bars and MS flats and then multiplying the weight of the representative sample by the number of pieces of that items. The weighment of MS angles, bars and flats was determined in this manner under Panchnama. It was found that as against the weight of 629.69 MT of MS angles, as recorded in the RG-1, the actual weight of MS angles was 734.484 MTs and similarly, as against the recorde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entative samples by number of pieces which is not the correct method and hence the weight of each item as ascertained cannot be said to be the correct weight; and (b) Just because there was excess of finished goods, it cannot be concluded that the same were meant for clandestine clearances and hence liable for confiscation. 1.2 It is against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the present appeal has been filed by the Revenue. The Respondents have filed the cross objection in respect of this appeal. 2. Heard both the sides. 2.1 Shri R.K. Saini, ld. DR assailed the impugned order reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenue's appeal. He pleaded that as mentioned in Panchnama, the weight of MS a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcess stock is not counter signed by the recording officer and hence no cognisance can be given to the same, that there is no evidence that there was any intention on the part of the Respondent to clear any goods clandestinely without payment of duty, that merely on the basis of alleged excess stock of MS angles, bars & flats, whose weight has been determined by estimation only, not by actual weighment, it cannot be alleged that there was excess stock not accounted for in the RG-1 Register, that in this regard he relies upon the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Rana Concast Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-I reported in 2004 (177) E.L.T. 483 (Tribunal-Delhi), that confiscation of allegedly unaccounted finished goods was not warranted when there is no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the alleged excess is 1.63 MT and 7.3 respectively, the benefit of doubt can be given. Therefore, in respect of MS angles, the Commissioner (Appeals) finding that there was no excess is not correct. The judgment in the case of Rana Concast Ltd. (supra) cited by the Appellant is not relevant as this is not a case where weight of the finished goods had been determined purely by eye estimation. 5. As per the provisions of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, non-accountal of excisable goods produced or manufactured, attract confiscation and penalty. Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules prescribes that "every assessee shall maintain proper records on daily basis in a legible manner indicating the parti....