TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (6) TMI 110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds in support of the same. "1. Whether the Tribunal is justified on facts and in the circumstances of the case in arriving at the conclusion that the goods were clandestinely removed by the appellant on the basis of stock verification by the departmental officials was on the basis of random weighment/verification? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in imposing fine of Rs. 75,000/- and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- and order of confiscation of 3,661 Nos. of rollers? 3. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in imposing fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- in respect of excess stock of inputs valued at Rs. 21,31,586/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ster does not amount to intention on its part to evade payment of excise duty to the Revenue. Therefore, the substantial question No. 3 would arise for consideration. 5. Another ground of attack in support of substantial question No. 4 is that the facts and circumstances for denial of Cenvat credit on the ground of shortage of raw material when the stock verification by the Departmental officers during their visit and random verification is not tenable in law. Therefore, he has requested this Court to answer the same in favour of assessee. The learned counsel for appellant-assessee has also placed reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Srikumar Agencies reported in 2008 (23....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing regard to the undisputed fact that proper accounting of goods was not made by the appellant in the relevant register such as daily stock register, the assessee has suppressed regarding finished goods. In not entering the same in the daily stock register, which shows that there was an intention on its part to evade payment of duty to the Revenue as in contravention of Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Having done so, the assessee has failed to properly account physical stock of raw materials upon which Cenvat credit was availed and thereby contravened sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Under the Central Excise Rules wherein, quantity of 3661 nos. of finished goods viz., rollers of different dimensions, valued at Rs. 15,8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f fact is recorded by the original authority, which finding is concurred by first appellate authority, which is accepted by the CESTAT in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and power and modified the redemption fine and penalties as follows : (i) Redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- in respect of 3661 Nos. of rollers is modified to Rs. 75,000/-. (ii) Redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- in respect of the inputs valued at Rs. 21,31,586/- is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. (iii) The order of reversal of irregular Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,23,844/- is upheld. (iv) Interest on the ab....