2012 (10) TMI 940

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bector, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER Both the appeals are being disposed of by common order as they arise out of same impugned order passed by the authorities below. As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of bars/rods. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise authorities on 10-2-2009 and various checks and verifications were done, which were apparently f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bove order did not succeed before Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. 3. After hearing both the sides, I find that total stock of the appellant available in their factory on the date of visit of officer on 11-2-2009 was to the tune of Rs. 1037.059 MT. The shortages alleged by the Revenue are to the tune of 39.189 MT which are roughly around 3.7%. It is admitted case of the Revenu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the appellants. 4. Tribunal in a number of decisions as detailed below, had held that mere acceptance of shortages at the time of visit of officers without their being corroborative evidence to reflect upon the clandestine removal, cannot lead to confirmation of demand of duty against the assessee. 1. CCE, Lucknow v. Roll Tubes Ltd. [2011 (265) E.L.T. 414 (Tri.-Del.)]; 2. UP Alloys Pv....