2016 (4) TMI 931

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Appellants argued that Appellant No.1 M/s.Maithan Steel & Power Ltd. is a manufacturer of sponge iron falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 72031000 of the first schedule to the CETA, 1985. That during a factory visit to the factory premises of Appellant No.1, a joint physical stock verification of the finished goods was carried out on 12.08.2011. That during such stock-taking a quantity of 95.790 MT of sponge iron was found to be short. That statement of Shri Satinath Mukherjee (Appellant No.2), who is the authorized signatory of Appellant No.1, was also recorded wherein he accepted the shortage of finished goods and agreed to pay the duty. That the entire amount of duty was deposited by the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3 (290) ELT 247(Tri.-Del.) 3. Shri S.S.Chatterjee, Supdt.(AR) appearing for the Revenue relied upon the case law  Majestic Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad [2004 (172) ELT 391(Tri.-Del.). He made the Bench go through para 6 of this case law to argue that it is not essential for the department to prove the clandestine removals by producing any positive evidence, when an assessee has admitted the shortages and pays the differential duty amount. It was also strongly argued that method of stock-taking was not disputed by the Appellants and was done in their presence. That proper inventories were prepared during stock-taking which were also signed by Appellant No.2. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 5. The issue involved....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce, Appellant cannot turn around and take a stand that stock-taking was inappropriately done. In view of the above the aspect of shortages of goods is established and the duty demand voluntarily paid by Appellant No.1 without protest is required to be confirmed. So far as payment of interest on the confirmed demand is concerned, it is observed that shortage was detected on 12.08.2011 and the corresponding demand was also paid by Appellant No.1 on the same day, therefore, there is no interest liability on Appellant No.1 on this account. 6. However, Appellants have relied upon several case laws on the issue of clandestine removal of the shortages detected and imposition of penalty. It is observed from the case law CCE, Kanpur v. Minakshi C....