2017 (5) TMI 1453

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocates- for the appellant Shri. R.K. Sharma, AR- for the respondent ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant (M/s AAR KAY Industries) is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the goods found excess or short have been confiscated and held liable for confiscation. Accordingly, the redemption fine and penalty has been imposed on the appellant (M/s AAR Kay Industries) and the Reven....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AAR Kay Industries) to confiscate of finished goods found excess/short and to impose redemption fine and to impose penalty on excess stock of raw material found during the verification under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and penalty was also proposed on Shri. Ramesh Goyal, Director of M/s AAR kay Industries under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The matter was adjudicated. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erification report and quantity is mentioned in the show cause notice. As the show cause notice itself is defective, therefore, the charge of shortage/excess of finished goods is not sustainable. Moreover, the stock taking has been done on eye estimation basis, the same cannot be accepted in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shree Ganesh Alloys reported in 2016 (337) ELT 59....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty imposed on the appellant is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. 5. As stock taking has not been done on physical verification, therefore, the charge of shortage/excess of finished goods and excess of raw material is not sustainable. 6. In view of this, redemption fine and penalty are not imposable on the appellant (M/s AAR Kay Industries). Consequently, ....