2011 (9) TMI 117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ts of MS Bars not accounted in the books of accounts. The department was also of the view that the Respondent had crossed the exemption limit of Rs. One crore prescribed in the notification 8/2002-CE when clearances for the period 01-04-2002 to 24-01-2003 were considered. The department was also of the view that M/s Balajee Steels and M/s J. K. Steels, two trading units, were involved in the sale of goods clandestinely cleared by the Respondent. A show cause notice was issued proposing-   (i) Confiscation under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules of the excess goods found during stock taking   (ii) Demanding duty amounting to Rs. 3,95,133.60 for clearances in excess of Rs. 1 crore during the financial year along with penalty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts had not crossed the exemption limit on the date of the verification and there is no duty to be demanded from the Respondents.   5. The Ld. DR submits that the Commissioner (Appeal) had held that process of weighing was not correctly done and for this procedural defect only the Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the seizure. He submits that the weighing process was started at 10.30 Hrs on 24-01-03 and concluded only by 25-01-03 and he submitted the detailed work sheets noting down the weight of 541 bundles which work sheets were signed by Shri. Harakh Chand Jaiswal partner of the Respondents. He contends that what is admitted need not be proved. So he contests that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeal) in the matter of the legalit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Excise, Allahabad to the extent of holding the seizure invalid on the grounds of vitiated process of weighment or necessary orders may be issued as deemed fit.   9. I have considered the arguments on either side and scrutinized the panchnama dated 24-01-03 drawn at the factory, and the finding of the Commissioner (Appeal) on the issue is as under:   Now, I have to examine the case in the light of the terms of remand as well as the observation made by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order.   I find that the adjudicating authority neither afforded the opportunity to the cross examine the witnesses nor gave specific observation on the document and affidavits presented by the appellants in their support. Rathe....