2016 (9) TMI 940

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ring for the Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondent. 3. As per facts on record, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of HB wire and binding wire falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise officer on 31.3.2007, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result, certain raw materials and final products were found to be short and a small quantum of final product was found to be in excess than the recorded balance. Statements were recorded and panchnama was prepared. 4. Based upon the same, proceedings were initiated against the respondents by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 26.09.06 proposing to confirm the demand of duty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s not recorded with any ulterior motive of clearing the same without payment of duty, as such, imposition of penalty was not warranted. He accordingly, dropped the proposition to confiscate the said goods. 6. Being aggrieved with the order of Additional Commissioner, Revenue filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that penalty under section 11AC, equivalent to duty amount should have been imposed and the excess found goods should have been confiscated. By a detailed order Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Revenue s appeal as he did not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the order of original adjudicating authority. 7. Hence the present appeal by Revenue. 8. After having heard the learned DR appearing for th....