Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S A.S.T. Pipes Pvt Ltd vs Cce, Ghaziabad on 8 May, 2008
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
COURT NO.II
E/Appeal No. 3053/06-SM
(Arising out of order in appeal No.79/CE/Gzb/06 dated 23.6.06 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr.P.K. Das, Member(Judicial))
1. Whether Press reporters may be allowed to see the
order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not ?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the Order ?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the
Departmental authorities?
______________________________________________________
M/s A.S.T. Pipes Pvt Ltd Appellant
(Rep. by Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate)
Vs
CCE, Ghaziabad Respondent
(Rep. by Shri A.K. Rastogi, DR) Coram: Honble Mr P.K. Das, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing: 8.5.08 Order No. /2008-SM(BR) Per P.K. Das:
The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of G.I. Tubes and M.S. Tubes etc. classifiable under Sub heading 7306.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 20th September, 2004, the Central Excise officers visited the Appellants factory and verified the stock. The officers ascertained shortage of finished goods which was accepted by the Appellants and paid the duty on the spot. In reply to Show Cause Notice, they explained that they receive raw material and dispatch of finished goods on actual weight basis, which were entered in the stock, but production in RG.I was recorded on the basis of formula, therefore, shortage was occurred. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty and appropriated the amount already deposited and imposed penalty of equal amount.
2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, I do not find any material that the shortage of finished goods was cleared clandestinely and therefore, imposition of penalty of equal amount of duty is not justified. Accordingly, penalty is set aside. The appeal is allowed in the above terms (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court).
(P.K. Das)
MPS* Member(Judicial)