TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (3) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icle parts. On 7-2-2001, officers of Central Excise visited their factory and found excess stock of both finished goods and raw materials. 482 Nos. of Steering Wheels valued at Rs. 1,03,984/- and 2.025 MTs of Iron and Steel scrap valued at Rs. 13,162/- were found in excess vis-a-vis RG-1. Various Cenvatable inputs totally valued at Rs. 7,16,979/- were also found in excess of the balance recorded i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 50,000/- on the party. The appeal preferred by the assessee against the decision of the original authority did not succeed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the sides. The Counsel for the appellants submits that neither confiscation nor penalty can be sustained on any ground relatable to the seized inputs inasmuch as Rule 173Q is not applicable to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the fine and penalty imposed are too high. 3. The DR submits that Shri Harish Chandran was the authorized signatory of the company and was competent to give the statement at the material time. He clearly admitted the excess stock. With regard to the Counsel's contention that Rule 173Q is not applicable to inputs, the DR cites the Tribunal's decision in Laxmi Polypack v. CCE, Hyderabad [2003 (56)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recorded in RG. I. The statement of the Authorised Signatory was never retracted. The Counsel's argument that Shri Harish Chandran was not competent to explain any discrepancy of stock is not tenable. Had Shri Harish Chandran not been competent for the purpose, he should have named the competent functionary who could explain the facts. Since the excess unaccounted stock of finished goods is admitt....