TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 931
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants 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 appellant on 12.08.2011 itself through e-payment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 in the present case is whether certain shortages (95.790 MT) of sponge iron detected by the officers of C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 Castings [2011 (274) ELT 180 (All.)], that Hon'ble High Court while deciding the issue of shortages of finish....