2013 (8) TMI 314

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stik Pipes Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellants) against the Order in Appeal No. 124-CE/LKO/2010 dated 29.06.2010 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeal), Lucknow. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are manufacturer of Black Steel Pipes and GI Pipes falling under chapter sub heading No. 73063090 of first schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A team of Preve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....adjudicated by the adjudicating authority who confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,45,175/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,45,175/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Rule. Appellant challenged the Order in Original before the Commissioner (Appeal) who vide the impugned order rejected their appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate appeari....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al verification and it cannot be said that shortage was based on eye estimation as stock is in numbers in annexure Panchnama. He points out the shortage is admitted by the factory manager in his the statement. In such circumstances both the lower authorities have rightly confirmed the demand against the appellant. 5. After hearing both sides, I find that in this case appellants factory was vis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Therefore the contention of the appellant that shortage is based on eye estimation is not acceptable and since there is shortage of the goods in the factory which is no explained by the factory manager it can be concluded that goods were removed without payment of Central Excise duty. Therefore I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Commissioner (Appeal) and I uphold the same. 7. A....