2004 (4) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tings falling under Chapter Heading 7325 & 7325.30 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As a result of audit objection, notices were issued against the appellants alleging that the processing loss of 27.68%, 23.06% and 22.25% shown in their balance sheet for the years 95-96, 96-97 and 97-98 were much on the higher side and as such it was alleged that the appellant had removed steel casting in the guise of processing loss without discharging Central Excise duties. On the identical ground Show Cause Notices in the 2nd appeal were raised. 2. Shri K.A. Sindhi, ld. Consultant and Shri Hitesh Shah, ld. JDR appeared for the Revenue. The appellant's main contention is that the processing loss mentioned by them in their balance sheet is correc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r percentage but submits that these guidelines are not applicable as they were in respect of integrated steel plants. 4. The appellant has also attacked demand on the point of limitation by submitting that the removal was being reflected in the Central Excise statutory records and as such the Revenue is not justified in issuing the Show Cause Notice by invoking the longer period of limitation. 5. Countering arguments Shri Hitesh Shah, ld. SDR submits that higher percentage of loss as shown by the appellant is suggestive of the fact that the final product is being removed by them without payment of duty inasmuch as in respect of hard metal like steel, such higher invisible losses cannot be expected. For the above proposition he has rel....