TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 666
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was determined by the officers and the same was found to be 14417 kg. less than the balance recorded in the RG-I Register. The duty involved on the goods found short was Rs . 1 ,17,878 /-, which was paid by the respondent. At the time of stock taking, Shri Vikas Bhartiya , Authorised Signatory of the respondent company, was present and on being asked about the shortage, he in his statement dated 27.06.2006 admitted the shortage and explained that the goods found short must have been removed from the factory by the staff of factory without payment of duty and without issue of invoices in his absence. Subsequently, after issue of show cause notice, the jurisdictional Asstt . Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 22.06.2007 confirmed the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Vikas Bhartiya , and restoration of the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner on the point of issue of penalty. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. Shri R.K. Mishra, Departmental Representative, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and pleaded that the shortage of the finished products, which is about 14417 kg., had been determined by the dip reading and at that time the authorised signatory of the respondent did not raise any objection regarding the shortage and on the contrary, had accepted the same stating that the goods found short must have been cleared from the factory without issue of invoice and without payment of duty and had agreed to pay duty involved on the goods found short, that lookin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. As regards preliminary objection that there was no Committee of Commissioners inasmuch as review order had not been signed by both the Commissioners on the same date, on going through the Review order, it is seen that one of the Commissioners has not put the date and only signed. From this, it cannot be inferred that both the Commissioners had not signed on the same date, moreover in terms of the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the case of present respondent reported in 2013 (290) ELT 217 (Allahabad) , there are no statutory rules prescribing that Commissioners will sit on same day at same time and take the decision about authorization. In view of this, the preliminary objection raised by the Counsel for the respondent is withou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d accepted the shortage and had accepted that the goods might have been removed from the factory by the staff of factory without issue of invoices and without payment of duty. If this is so, the respondent at this stage, cannot allege that there was no shortage. In my view, looking to the quantum of shortage, the only conclusion, which can be drawn, is that the goods found short have been removed without payment of duty and without invoices and as such no other evidence is required. Once the fact of clandestine removal is upheld, in view of the Apex Court's judgement in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra) penalty under Section 11AC would be mandatory even if the disputed amount of duty had been paid prior to the issue of ....