TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 606
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 along with interest on the alleged clandestine removal of goods found short in the course of stock taking during inspection on 21/22.09.2011 and confirmed by the impugned OIA passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Meerut I. 2. Brief facts are that an inspection was carried out in the factory premises. The stock of M.S.TMT Bars, M.S.Angles, M.S.Channel & M.S.Ingot, was verified. For the purpose of physical verification, the inspection officer, with the help of the staff of the appellant, took one representative bundle of some bars or ingots and weight the same. Thereafter, the said average weight was multiplied with the number of bundles or bars in arriving at the stock (b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... valued at Rs. 62,79,532/- and 1,25,36,544/- respectively clandestinely, with intent to evade the payment of duty and did not pay duty leviable thereon and did not pay duty on the goods removed clandestinely and further did not enter the removed quantity in the relevant record and also did not issue invoices for such quantity of finished goods removed by them. In view of the fact that the appellants have deposited tax on the stock found short, it appeared to Revenue that there is an admission on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, they were required to show cause as to why the Excise duty amounting to Rs. 19,38,056/- be not demanded and appropriated from the amount already deposited and further why the penalty be notimposed under Rules ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter, the stock was counted and multiplied with the sample weight and accordingly, the stock by weight was ascertained. In this method of estimation, there is bound to be variation and the variation of about 10% as explained does not call for any adverse inference. So far as the shortage of MS Bar during the course of inspection, is concerned, it was stated that the Central Excise Officers conducted the verification of stock of MS Bars, which was in bundle form. The factual position is that the bars are also lying in the loose form near to cooling bed, of different size and manual bundling was in process. Thus, the loose MS bars, which also formed part of the stock, were not considered at the time of verification. This fact was also pointed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....guously present. It was further observed that in view of the shortage noticed presumption drawn as to clandestinely removal stands. 6. Aggrieved, the appellant have preferred an appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that as the matter of stock taking is only approximation, there is bound to be difference and the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in treating adverse conclusion under the presumption that there is clandestine removal. At the time of inspection, the various persons have stated that some variation is bound to be there as they issued inventory for production on the basis of counting of the ingots, whereas stock is calculated by weight. It is further urged that the variation explained to the extent of 56 MT in the stock of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of stock of goods, it was noticed that there was a vast difference between physical stocks available and that shown in RG 23A Part I Register. The Managing Director had admitted that the actual physical stock of inputs and entries in the Register, did not tally because the assessee had removed the modvatable inputs for sales and warranty replacements. Further, shortage was admitted and stated, due to reason that their Office Assistant, who was maintaining their books of accounts, was only a matriculate and being a non-technical person, committed mistake. The Honble Supreme Court observed that it is not disputed that the alleged suppression of payment of duty by the respondent, was brought to notice of the authority on 25.10.1996, when the....