2019 (4) TMI 1535

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce Charge Sheets "as final/finished excisable product and comparing the same with the Daily Stock Account (DSA) of the respondent during the period from 01/07/2010 to 31/08/2011. It was alleged that the respondent has short accounted a quantity of 674.402 MT of finished goods which have been removed clandestinely without payment of Central Excise Duties amounting to Rs. 37,74,799/-. This allegation in the Show Cause Notice was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority by confirming the demand along with interest and imposing penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the Managing Director, Shri Subhasis Banerjee. 2. On appeal before the Lower Appellate Authority, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ltd. [2004 (165) ELT 136 (S.C.)] 5. The Ld. advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent company and Shri Subhasis Banerjee argued that the "Furnace Charge Sheet" which have been relied upon by the department in their grounds of appeal, is not authenticate document to establish the actual production of finished goods so as to compare the production as recorded in DSA. He made the Bench go through Para 6.5 of the Impugned Order which has held the entire dispute in details. 6. The Ld. Advocate strongly reverted the submissions of the Ld. DR and argued that the Revenue has tried to establish clandestine removal by filing this appeal supporting the "Furnace Charge Sheet". These entries in the sheet might have created doubt but it shoul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal which was already decided by an OIA dt. 22/12/2014. The only mistake in the Order-in-Appeal dated 22/12/2014 is that only one OIA No. was allotted instead of two. For this small mistake, a corrigendum order would have sufficed but over enthusiastic Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded to pass an Order-in-Appeal all over again brushing aside the procedural aspects completely which is required to be observed by an Appellate Authority. 9. In view of the above discussions, the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 22/CE/BBSR-II/2016 dated 31/05/2016 cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is set aside and appeal no. E/76164/2016 filed by the appellant is allowed. 10. Regarding the Order-in-Appeal No. 01/CE/BBSR-II/2014 dated 22/12/2014....