2018 (2) TMI 791

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 Sh. M. R. Sharma, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed against the order-in-original No.RPR/EXCUS/000/COM/023-060/2016 dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Raipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and engaged in the manufacture of various s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....riation was much below of 2% which was cumulated in one year and in the year under consideration it has exceed the limit of 2%. Lastly, he submits that this is the practice of the industry and difference is permissible as stated in the Board circular. 4. On the other hand, Sh. M. R. Sharma, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue submits that 2% norm is prescribed and it will have to be followed. Howe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rule 223A. The Department's view is not correct in terms of the judicial pronouncements cited by the appellants. There is no allegation that the appellants have removed goods in clandestine manner. Moreover, the stock taking was done by the appellants themselves. The departmental officers only associated with the same. Hence, the stock taking cannot be said to have been conducted in terms of Rule ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of stock and consequent illicit removal of finished goods cannot be sustained. A plethora of case laws hold that provisions of Section 11A would apply in making demands of duty on deficiencies found during stock taking. The appellants based many reasons for discrepancies between the RG-1 and the physical stock. For examine, the RG-1 is only based on estimated production and not based on actual wei....