TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r hearing both the sides duly represented by Ms. Reena Khair, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri BB Sharma, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue, I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pipes and tubes and their factory was visited by the Central Excise officers from 17.11.2003 to 27.11.2003. On physical stock taking, excess stock of their ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in RGI Register. It is also seen that immediately after stock taking, the appellants addressed a letter dated 29.11.2003 to the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Rohtak submitting as under:- Dear Sir, SUB: STOCK TAKING OF OUR PRODUCT VIZ. MS STEEL GALVD. & BLACK PIPES & TUBES. We would like to apprise you that our factory is manufacturing MS Steel Galvd. & Black Tube since 1960. We are sell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d also submitted that it is neither possible nor feasible to undertake such a huge stock available in their factory. I also find that no inventories stand made by the Revenue, in which case I agree with the Ld. Advocate that it is not possible to undertake the physical verification of the goods for a continuous period of 7 - 8 days. I further note that the lower authorities has also confiscated th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confiscation. To the same effect to the decision of the Truibunal in the case of CCE, Aurangabad Vs. Gal Aluminium Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (274) ELT 582 (Tri. - Mumbai)]. Further, Tribunal in the case of Rattan Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur [2013 (290) ELT 442 (Tri. - Del.)] and in the case of CCE, Lucknow Vs. Kundan Casting (P) Ltd. [2008 (227) ELT 465 (Tri.-Del.)] has held that in the a....