TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Udyog, Mahindra & Mahindra, General Motors, Honda Siel Co. Ltd. and Ford India Ltd. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 08.12.2005 and 09.12.2005, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result, shortages of HR/CR sheets were detected and some of the final products were not entered into RG-23-Part I register. 3. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against them for confirmation of demand of duty of Rs.20,65,497/- (Rupees twenty lakh sixty five thousand four hundred and ninety seven only) as also for imposition of penalty. The same resulted in passing of an order by the Addl. Commissioner confirming the demand and imposing penalties. 4. On appeal against the above orders, the appellants cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g staff had prepared two computerised stock statements in the manner so as to show shortage of finished goods equivalent to the shortage found in the stocks of raw materials. They have also pointed out that Sh. Girdhari Lal authorised signatory and one of the shareholders in the appellants firm in his statement dated 19.9.2006 had denied that they had removed the stocks found short clandestinely without payment of duty and that the statement of Shri Gansham Dass, Director of the appellant company has only been relied to establish the case of clandestine removal. On the technical sides regarding production of stocks found short during verification the appellant have pointed out that in order to manufacture those stocks, they required 30,499....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed upon to establish the clandestine removal of these goods. These computerised stock statements have been described as the parallel record maintained by the appellants. To corroborate this clandestine removal, statement dated 8.12.2005 of Shri Ghansham Das Bassi director of the appellants has been relied upon. The appellants in their grounds of appeal have strongly contested the genuineness of the computerized statement prepared on 9.12.2005. The appellant submit that they were maintaining the stocks of finished goods manually in RG-I registers and no computerized records were maintained by them. That the computerized records do not contain the details of datewise production/clearance and those were got prepared only for 9.12.2005. I find ....