2017 (9) TMI 452

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi was right in taking a contrary view in two identical cases covered by same show cause notice? (II) Whether Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 is self contained as the same is already subject to provisions of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944?" 3. It is submitted that a common notice was issued to various parties including respondent-Assessee (hereinafter referred to as "Assessee") in same language on 29.04.2005. 4. In Appeal no. E/1797/2008 SM (BR) (Delhi) Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Sarada Steel Industries Pvt. Limited reported in 2011(264) E.L.T. 297, Tribu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e relevant facts, in brief, are that the Officers of DGCEI and Central Excise Commissionerate, Kanpur searched the factory premises of the respondents and other connected premises. They conducted stock taking verification of the finished goods. By inspection and weighment of CTD bars and MS ingots, they found physical stock of CTD bars of 759.9 MT whereas the stock shown in the RG-1 register was only 656.505 MT. They also found 30 MT of scrap as against the recorded stock of 22.360 MT. The officers also , according to the learned SDR, seized incriminating documents indicating suppression of production and clandestine removal. In pursuance of the show cause notice, the original authority ordered confiscation of 103.395 MT of CTD bars valued ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Appeals), the method adopted for ascertaining the excess of finished goods have not been indicated; weighment sheets have not been prepared and attached; it was not practically possible that the weight of each piece of CTD bars were taken in a span of 9 hours 15 minutes when the officers were present in the factory. In other words, the excess stock alleged has to be treated only as notional and not as actual and based on eye estimation. He also submits that even if the goods were found to be excess, the finding of the original authority that they were kept for clandestine removal was based on presumption and such presumption was not warranted. He also submits that the alleged excess found goods were within the factory and there is no just....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... nature of the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to notice that there was no representation against the correctness of the panchnama by the respondent company for several months. Merely because the respondent company has doubted the panchnama in the reply to the notice, the same should not have been accepted in the absence of any valid reason. I have not been shown any retraction of the statement given by the authorised signatory. In view of the above, the irregular maintenance of accounts by not entering correctly the quantum of goods manufactured is clearly established attracting provisions of Rule 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the finding of the original authority that the said goods were kept for clande....