2010 (9) TMI 588

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - Heard Departmental Representative for the appellants. None present for the respondents. 2. This appeal arises from the order dated 28-2-2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the department against the order of the adjudicating authority has been dismissed. 3. The appeal was filed on the g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 was raised in the show cause notice or not, the Departmental Representative could not point out any fact apart from saying that the fact the shortage of the goods was admitted by the authorized signatory of the respondents. 5. In fact in relation to the alleged admission, the averment in the show cause notice was that a statement....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6. It is settled law that in case admission, the same has to be considered in its entirety and the entire statement has to be read in totality and admission cannot be considered by referring to the part of the statement. So-called admission in relation to removal of stock of inputs was clearly qualified by the statement that the same was done by the staff of factory in the absence of auth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t was totally absent in the show cause notice, there was no question of imposition of penalty by the adjudicating authority. 7. Apart from what is stated above, there is clear finding by the lower authorities that the department has failed to produce any evidence about clandestine removal of the inputs. Nothing has been pointed out to me except the said statement while contending that ther....