TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 1011
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.1999 a stock staking was conducted in the factory premises of the appellants by the Central Excise Officers i.e. raw material, waste and scrap of wires, cables and finished goods (wires and cables). At the time of taking stocks, they found shortages of raw material and finished goods. A panchnama was drawn thereafter some investigations were conducted. Finally, a show-cause notice was issued alleging that the shortages occurred are due to the fact that the noticee failed to adopt the prescribed procedure in such manner, as he is required to do and also failed to offer any plausible explanation for the discrepancies noticed by the officers proposing the demand of duty and on shortages of raw material and finished goods and also proposing f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as well as finished goods to the authorities concerned, the same were taken on record but not considered at all. If a reconciliation statement was made by the concerned authorities, no shortages could be found. The allegation against the appellant is that they could not explain the shortages during the course of search cannot be termed as these shortages have been admitted by the appellant or their authorised representatives. He further submitted that after manufacturing the finished goods, the appellant has to call their purchaser for testing of the specifications of the goods and after duly tested, they are to be cleared to the prescribed buyers. If the lower authorities would have considered the submissions of the appellant in reply to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y filed their replies saying that there was no shortages during the course of search. In fact during the course of search, specific queries were made to the authorised representatives, who failed to reply to the same, hence the impugned orders are sustainable. In support of his contention, he also relied on certain case laws viz., CCE, Aurangabad Vs. Greaves Cotton Ltd., reported in 2008 (225) ELT 198 (Bom), Goodrich Fairwell Exports Vs. CC (Imports) Nhava Sheva, reported in 2010 (252) ELT 428 (Tri.Mum), CCE, Madras Vs. Systems and Components Pvt Ltd., reported in 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC), Alagappa Cements Pvt Ltd., Vs. CESTAT Chennai reported in 2010-TIOL-770-HC-Mad-Cx. And Maxworth Plywood Pvt Ltd., Vs. CCE, Vishakapattanam, reported in 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Ld. DR are to be examined in detail. In the case of Greaves Cotton Ltd., (supra), the facts are not similar to this case in fact in that case the Cost Accountant of the assessee has found shortages of raw material during the physical verification of the inventory, which is not in this case. Hence, the case law is not relevant in this case. The decision in the case of Goodrich Fairwell Exports (supra) is also of no help to the DR as the facts of the said case is also totally irrelevant to the facts of the impugned case. The reliance in the case of Systems and Components Pvt Ltd., wherein it was held that what is admitted need not to be proved. It is also not relevant to the facts of the case as the appellant has given a detailed re....