TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 336
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was no corresponding central excise invoice. During the follow up action, factory of the appellant was visited and verification of the records revealed that daily stock account had not been maintained after 18.04.08 and officers proceeded to calculate the stock that should be available based on closing stock on 18.04.08, subsequent production and removals, found that there was an excess quantity of 21,018 boxes of ceramic glazed tiles in the factory. A penalty of Rs.1,38,205/- has been imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and redemption fine of Rs.1,92,700 has been imposed in respect of 21,018 boxes of ceramic glazed tiles found in excess. Hence the appeal. 2. The learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant that duty has been demanded wrongly on the basis of MRP and reduced the assessable value after giving abatement, he did not reduce the redemption fine and the penalty which should have been reduced. 4. The learned DR on the other hand submits that this is a clear case where the intention to remove clandestinely emerges in view of the fact that the excess stock was found during follow up action of the departmental officers after interception of a truck which was carrying unaccounted and un-invoiced ceramic tiles. Further, he drew my attention to the fact that in the statement recorded, it was brought out that appellant did not follow the instructions given by the Central Excise Department to indicate aggregate value of clearance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... drawing of panchnama, the excess stock was worked out was accepted by the representative of the company. The correctness or otherwise of the claim has not at all been examined. However in the same statement submitted by the appellants in the appeal memorandum it has also been shown that broken and damaged quantity as 825. On verification of production memo, it was seen that broken/damaged tiles are accounted in terms of Kgs whereas the statement in the appeal memorandum gives feeling that broken/damaged tiles are accounted in the boxes in the production memos which is definitely contrary to the facts. Therefore 825 boxes shown as broken/damaged has to be ignored. This results in the conclusion that the actual quantity found in excess may n....