2024 (9) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the appellant on 12.04.2012, stock verification of inputs and the final product was conducted in the presence of Shri Ashish Agarwal, Director of the appellant company and two independent witnesses. On stock verification, shortage of 197.115 MT. M.S. Ingots (finished goods), 154.56 MT of Sponge Iron and 11.04 MT of Pig Iron (raw material) was detected, against which the appellant deposited central excise duty of Rs.13,15,617/- vide their Cenvat account. During investigation, it was also found that the appellant had removed their finished goods clandestinely as revealed from the scrutiny of loose papers, indicating unaccounted despatches by the appellant. The central excise duty payable on such clandestine removal was worked out to Rs.71,45,014/-. 3. Show cause notice dated 31.03.2014 was issued to the appellant and five other noticees demanding central excise duty on two counts i.e. Rs.13,15,617/- for shortage detected in the raw material and finished goods under Section 11A(4) of the Act along with interest for late payment and penalty and Rs.71,45,014/- on account of clandestine removal of goods. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed, however, the appellant approached the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was on the basis of the declaration given by the appellant themselves, which they could not explain. The learned Authorised Representative relied on the principle that admitted facts need not be proved or established by the Department and hence no further corroboration is required. 7. The controversy in the present appeal is limited to the demand of central excise duty towards shortage in the raw material and the finished goods. The case of the Revenue is that the stock verification was conducted in the presence of Shri Ashish Agarwal, where opportunity was granted to him to declare the stock themselves as on 12.04.2012, as the stock maintained in their registers was only up to 9.04.2012. As a result, the appellant themselves declared the stock by taking into account the sales, purchase, production and consumption of both the raw material and the finished goods. The said declaration is as under:- Items Opening Balance Production Sales Closing M.S. Ingots 176.775 531.960 398.570 310.165 Runner Riser 36.080 21.280 30.000 27.360 553.240 % 85.67 3.43 Items Op.Balance Purchase Consumed Closing Sponge 555.840 574.840 531.120 59....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Revenue, therefore, is that it is not a case where the Revenue alleged clandestine removal and therefore were obliged to establish the allegation of clandestine removal by the assessee. It was a case of huge shortage of finished products as well as raw materials and lack of any fair explanation by the assessee. The responsible authorities or persons of the assessee-Company accepted the shortage and volunteered to make good the demand of Excise duty of which a significant amount thereof came to be paid and for payment of the balance amount a plea was taken that since the Company was in financial distress, therefore, further time and indulgence ought to be extended to them. However, instead of sticking to their words and despite time having been granted by the Excise authorities, to the Company, they approached the appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal without taking into consideration the statements and acceptance made by the responsible officers of the assessee, got taken in by the line of arguments made before it that it was a case of clandestine removal, therefore, onus has to shift upon the Revenue to establish the same on the basis of the principles extracted from the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....search which was politely denied by him. During the proceedings, due respect was paid to all and no damage was done to any movable or immovable property of the unit or any person. We, the panchas and Shri Ashish Agrawal read the panchnama and read out to us and found exactly written as was conducted, we and Shri Ashish Agrawal, Director signed the panchnama without any fear, greed and duress. The proceeding of panchnama was conducted at 19.00 hrs." 12. Also there has been no retraction by the appellant of the statement made under Section 14 of the Act. I agree with the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative that what is admitted need not be proved, as held by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Madras Vs. Systems and Components Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (165) ELT 136(SC), the charge of shortage in stocks stood conclusively proved by the admissions of the authorized signatory of the company. Similarly, the observations of the Tribunal in the case of K.P. Basheer Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin 1999 (109) ELT 247 (T) , that the admitted facts need not be proved or established by the Department. The principle enunciated by the Apex Court in K.I. Pavunny Vs. Asstt. Collector....