2017 (3) TMI 221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Shri P.K. Choudhary 1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that M/s. Narsingh Ispat Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of Pig Iron classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. During the search of the office premises and factory on 22.06.2011, some statutory and private rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner (Appeals). By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 4,81,623/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount of duty on the appellant company. Penalty for Rs. 25,000/- on appellant no.2 was confirmed. Hence, both the appellants, filed these appeals. 3. The ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the Adjudicating A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....I find that the Adjudicating Authority though observed that eye estimation cannot be said to be 100% accurate, but it is also observed that in the present case, the difference in the stock was substantially large and cannot be ignored. The shortage between the physical and the RG-1 stock is 67.59% in respect of Pig Iron. In the case of Pig Iron chips, it is 28.18%. The stock taking report was sign....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the contention of the Appellant No.1 that these weighments are not correct and factual is without any basis. More so, the verification/weighment was done jointly and two senior officers of Appellant No.1 were associated all along who signed the same for their correctness. It is also on record that Shri Puneet Gupta, Head Supervisor of Appellant No.1 in his statement recorded on 22.06.2011 stated t....