2015 (11) TMI 598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... DR For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Chibber, Advocate ORDER Per S. K. Mohanty: The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut-II. The facts of the case are that during the course of verification of stocks of finished goods and raw materials by the Central Excise officials in the factory of the respondent, it was detecte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e been clandestinely removed from the factory. Further, it has also been held in the impugned order that the method of stock taking adopted by the Central Excise Officers is not proper and justified. Against the impugned order, the Revenue has filed appeal before this Tribunal. 2. In the grounds of appeal, annexed to the appeal memorandum, the Revenue has contested the impugned order on the gro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....proper and since the stock in process was not actually verified and the quantity declared by the proprietor of the Respondent company as stock in process was accepted by the officers of the Department, the duty liability cannot be fastened against the Respondent in absence of any plausible evidence that the goods have been removed from the factory. I also find from the grounds of appeal, that the ....