TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (10) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue has failed to produce any evidence of clandestine removal and sale of goods. It has further been found as a fact that the demand of duty on raw material found short is based on the presumption that the raw material must have been used in manufacturing final products, which was ultimately cleared without payment of duty. The Tribunal has noticed the undisputed fact that demand of duty on raw material is based on the quantification of the production, which is worked out on the basis of input and output ratio and in any case, the assesseerespondent had paid duty on the shortage immediately after the ascertainment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-respondent is a company engaged in the manufacture of writing, printi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the same in the records, without payment of duty and without counting of raw material used in the manufacture of such finished goods. On further inquiry, Shri Vijay Mittal failed to reply as to whom these goods had been sold. Shri Vijay Mittal, however, admitted the fact of manufacture of 89.635 MT of paper board, based on the percentage of yield obtained in last three months, which arrived at 70.14% out of 127.794 MT of waste paper that was found short. He also undertook to deposit the Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,53,598/- and Cess amounting to Rs. 1,200/- on 89.635 MT in respect of paper Board valued at Rs. 9,59,988/- and total duty of Rs. 2,03,006/- and Cess amounting to Rs. 1491/- on the shortage of finished goods. Accordingly the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s Machino Montell (I) Limited and another 2006 (202) E.L.T. 398(P&H)=2006(4) S.T.R. 177(P&H)] and held that mere deposit before issuance of show cause notice was not conclusive for not imposing penalty and the matter had to be gone into on merits." 5. After remand, the Tribunal has again passed an order dated 5.2.2007 (Annexure A/6) holding that the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act was not leviable as there was no evidence of clandestine removal and sale of goods. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from para 5 of the order which reads as under: " After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, it appears from the impugned orders that the demand of duty on raw material found short is based on the presumption that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Pushpanjali Steel Alloys P. Ltd., 2004 (166) ELT 59 (Tri.-Del.); Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Nabha Steels Ltd., 2004(169) ELT 0345 (Tri.-Del.); Prabhat Polycoaters v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat, 2002(147) ELT 701 (Tri.-Mumbai); and Sainsons Paper Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III, 2003(158) 0782 (Tri.-Delhi). Learned counsel has insisted for citing of those judgments and also for considering the same for disposal of the instant appeal. 7. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal in para five of the order as reproduced above are unassailable and same are not open to any ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dustries Ltd. (supra) have to be taken into account by this Court as precedents does not require any detailed consideration. The orders passed by the Tribunal do not constitute precedents to be cited before the High Courts because the Tribunals are necessarily the final Courts of recording the findings of facts. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Sections 35A and 35C of the Act is entirely different than the power of this Court conferred by Section 35G of the Act. The Tribunal has been clothed with the power nay duty of confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against passed under Section 35A of the Act by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereas the High Court under Section 35G of the Act could exerci....