2015 (3) TMI 866

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Regional Bench, Chennai was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in passing the final order without considering the question of law raised by the Department that non-production of magazer witness does not constitute a fatal flaw? 2. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not considering the fact that stock taking conducted by the eye estimation as pointed out by the first appellate authority is not a proper method?" 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant/assesssee is engaged in the manufacture of CTD Bars falling under chapter sub-heading 721....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Appeals), the Department went before the Tribunal. The Tribunal came to hold that the case of the Department was on the basis of the unretracted statement of Shri.J.Balaji, Manager of the assessee - company and the mahazar clearly showing shortage. The Tribunal did not accept the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the shortage could not be ascertained in the manner done by the Department and allowed the appeal filed by the Department. However, the Tribunal following the case of Gaurang Alloys & Iron Ltd. Vs. CCE Ranchi [ 2010 (252) ELT 67] deleted the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 5. As against the said order of the Tribunal, the assessee is before this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel appeari....