2007 (4) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of rolled products of iron and steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 21-1-2003, the central excise officers visited the factory premises of the respondent and de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y rightly imposed redemption fine and penalty upon the respondents. He further submits that the respondent No. 2 Shri Andesh Gupta, Director of the respondent company had clear knowledge of the excess stock of inputs and he tried to mislead the case. 4. The learned advocate on behalf of the respondents submits that the allegations made in the show cause notice that excess quantity of inputs was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ategorically submitted before the adjudicating authority that the discrepancy occurred due to the fact that they have not physically verified the stock of inputs for the last one month. This fact was also admitted by the respondent No. 2 in his statement before the central excise officers which was not refuted by the adjudicating authority. The allegation made in the show cause notice that the exc....