2016 (11) TMI 423

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Appellant. Shri. H.M. Dixit, Asst. Comm. (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Raju 1. The appellants are manufacturer of ingots. During the search by the Revenue in the premises of the appellants, stock taking was done and excess of finished goods was found as compared to the recorded stock. The details as per the statement of Shri Pramod H Garg, Manager of the appellant is as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....leared was also imposed under 25 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the goods were not finished and therefore, the same were not entered in the records. It was their claim that the goods were unfinished and therefore, she argued that the same would have entered in the records after finishing.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion which happened during their presence at the time of drawal of panchnama was unrecorded and intended to be cleared without payment of duty. From the statement of Shri Pramod Garg, it is seen that 21.498 MTs were manufactured on 01/09/2009 upto 1400 hrs. In these circumstances, it is obvious that the goods manufactured during the period when the Revenue was searching the premises were not record....