TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged in the manufacture of hot re-rolled products of Iron & Steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant had been paying duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was discontinued w.e.f. 1-4-2000. Vide CBEC Circular F.No. 522/2000-CX dated 31-3-2000, the opening stock of finished goods lying with re-rolling mills as on 1-4-2000 was to be treated as duty paid goods and was not required to pay any duty on the clearance. The appellants furnished a declaration dated 1-4-2000 declaring therein the closing stock of inputs and finished goods as on 31-3-2000 in the prescribed proforma. The Central Excise Officers visited the premises of the appellant no. (1) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Section 11AC and Rule 173Q respectively on the appellant no. (1). He also imposed penalty of Rs.15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- on Shri R.K. Saraogi, Proprietor of the appellant no. (1) and Shri N.N. Swam Manager of the appellant no. (1) respectively. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on Skin R.K. Saraogi, Proprietor of the appellant no. (1) and otherwise the appeal was rejected. 3. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellants paid overtime to its employees for manufacturing in two shifts on 30 & 31-3-2000. The overtime sheets and salary sheets were produced before the adjudicating authority. The proprietor of the appellant no. (1) categorically stated that the alleged 120 MT wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh-I, 2003 (155) E.L.T. 161 (T); and (vii) Lalit Chordía v. CCE, Jaipur-II, 2002 (150) E.L.T. 584 (T). He also submits that penalty imposed on the Manager of the appellant No. (1) is not justifiable as he is only an employee. He relied upon in the case of Z.U. Alvi v. CCE, Bhopal, 2000 (117) E.L.T. 69 (T). 4. The learned DR on behalf of the respondents reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that in the instant case the employees of the appellant No. (1) in their statements under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 categorically stated that they have never worked for more than one shift on 30th & 31st March, 2000. He submits that the said statements were not retracted by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cks. The stock verification reports were also signed by Shri N.M. Swamy. In my view, the appellants cannot change their stand by saying that the stock verification was done by the Officers on eye estimation basis. As such, I find that the demand of duty and confiscation of the goods on excess finished goods and shortage of inputs are correct. The case laws relied upon by the learned advocate are not applicable in the present case for the reasons as under: (i) In the case of Geekay Wires Pvt. Ltd. v. CCF, Hyderabad, (supra), the Revenue proceeded on the basis of the stock weighed on eye estimate and without physical weighment. In this case, the appellants themselves declared sizewise finished goods. (ii) In the case of Micro Forge (I) Pvt.....