TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s. SAPL (i) Penalty imposed of Rs. 1,49,406/-, 2,112/- is set aside. 5. Appeal No. 148/07 in respect of M/s. PIU (i) Penalty imposed of Rs. 2,01,812/-, 3,338/- is set aside. 6. Remaining portion of the Order-in-Original stands confirmed. Appeals are disposed in above terms. 2. The facts of the case are that the M/s. Sunvijay Group company namely M/s. Sanvijay Rolling & Engg. Ltd., M/s. Sanvijay Steels Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Sanvijay Alloys Pvt. Ltd. were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e iron and steel rolls falling under Chapter 72 of the scheduled to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said units of M/s. Sanvijay group of Industries alongwith their other units and common registered office were visited by surprise by the Central Excise officers on 20/5/2003 to carry preventive checks. During the verification of statutory records, the physical stock of finished goods as well as raw material on which Cenvat credit was availed; it was revealed that there were discrepancies in the stock of finished goods as compared to the recorded balance as well as in the raw material also. Physical verification of stock of finished goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Credit. In the adjudication Ld. Adjudicating authority confirmed demand on shortages found in the respective unit and also confirmed Cenvat Credit demand in respect of three units i.e M/s. Sanvijay Rolling & Engg. Ltd., M/s. Sanvijay Steels Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Sanvijay Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Aggrieved by the order in original dated 30/3/2007 confirming demand, assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (appeals) who upheld the demand however dropped the penalty commensurate to the excise duty on the shortages of input and finished goods. Demand of Cenvat Credit in respect of credit taken on debit notes was also confirmed which was admittedly paid by the assessee and they have not contested the same. Aggrieved by the said impugned order the following appeals were filed. Sr. No. Appeal No. Name of the appellant Duty amounts. Penalty amount Rs. Cenvat Credit Inventory shortage Debit Note Total 1 E/1552/07 Deppt. Appeal - - - 42,45,724 - 42,45,724 2. E/1560/07 M/s. Sanvijay Rolling & Engg. Ltd., 21,14, 189 46,664 10,546 21,71,399 - 21,14,189 3. E/1561/07 M/s. Sanvijay Steels Industries Pvt. Ltd 7,44,260 1,80,889 10,051 9,35,200 - 7,44,260 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the said received quantity. On the query from the bench regarding the evidence of transportation of the goods from the unit where the goods were said to have been wrongly delivered to the actual unit, he could not produce a single evidence. As regard the departmental appeal on penalties on the shortage, debit note, he submits that since the clandestine removal has not been established and demand is within the normal period, penalties were rightly dropped by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) therefore appeal filed by the Revenue to this effect is not maintainable and same require to be dismissed. 4. On the other hand, Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that as regard the parties appeal, he reiterates the findings of the Ld. Commissioner inasmuch as demand on shortage of stock debit note as well as wrongly availed Cenvat credit without receipt of inputs. As regard penalties, he submits that shortage were found in respect of finished goods and input during stock taking and the same was admitted by the director of the assesee/company therefore the same is maintainable. As regard wrong availment of Cenvat credit without rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove appellants were given show cause notice dated 30/07/98 raising demand of duty against them on the allegations of clandestine removal of their final products and proposing imposition of personal penalty. The said show cause notice stands adjudicated by the impugned order of the Commissioner. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri R. Nambirajan, Ld. Advocate And Shri R.B. Pardeshi, Ld. SDR, we find that the duty demanded can be split into three parts. (i) Demand of duty of Rs. 49491/- is on account of difference in the physical stock entered in RG-1 register on sectional weight basis. Whereas in some cases, where their customers insists on actual weight, they cleared the goods on actual weight. In any case, the shortage being within the range of +/- 5% , should be ignored. We agree with the above contention of the Ld. Advocate, except for small % of shortage in the final product, which in any case stands explained by the appellants, we find that there is no other evidence on record to show that the appellants had cleared the said goods without payment of duty from their factory. Inasmuch as the shortage is within the range of +/- 5%, we find no justifiable reason to....