Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Shree Sharma Steel Rolling Mills ... vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 24 May, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 24.5.2013
Excise Appeal No. 4050 of 2010-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 316(DKV)CE/JPR-I dated 1.7.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur-I)
For Approval & signature:
Honble Shri Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would 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 Department Authorities?
M/s Shree Sharma Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance:
Appeared for Appellant : None
Appeared for Respondent : Shri G.K. Dixit, D.R.
CORAM: Honble Shri Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 56449/2013 dated 24.5.2013
Per Sahab Singh :
This appeal has been filed by M/s Shree Sharma Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal No. 316(DKV)/CE/JPR-I/2010 dated 28.6.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur.
2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Shee Sharma Rolling Mills (appellant) are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. bar under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff. During the visit of the Central Excise officers on 22.12.2007, finished goods i.e. M.S. bars 131.600 MTs were found short during the physical verification. The statement of Shri Ashish Sharma, Company Secretary cum authorised signatory of the unit was recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act on 22.12.2007 in which he admitted shortage in stock of finished goods and also stated that due to holiday of Id on 21.12.2007 most of the staff was on holiday and they could not make the invoices for clearances made on 21.12.207. He also deposited the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.5,50,195/- vide PLA Entry No. 2 dated 22.12.2007 and vide RG 23A Entry No. 788 dated 22.12.2007 (Rs.64,335 + Rs.4,85,860 respectively). A Show Cause Notice dated 21st March 2008 was issued to the appellant which was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 65/2009 dated 30th December 2009 confirming the duty amounting to Rs.5,50,195/- and also imposing penalty of equal amount on the appellant. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who rejected their appeal. The appellants have challenged the impugned Order-in-Appeal in this appeal.
3. None appeared for the appellant. On 8th March 2013 also the case was adjourned on the request of the appellant.
4. Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue submits that in this case when the factory visited by the Central Excise officers on 22nd December 2007 shortage of 131.600 MT of M.S. bars was noticed and shortage was admitted by the authorised signatory in the statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. He submits that in the present appeal the appellants have challenged only the imposition of penalty imposed on them. Since this is a case of clandestine removal penalty equal to the duty amount is rightly being confirmed by the original authority and also by Commissioner (Appeals).
5. After going through the case records, I find that the only issue involved in this appeal is whether penalty of Rs.5,50,195/- is justified as confirmed by the lower authorities on the appellant. This is a fact on record that during the physical verification of the goods in the factory by the Central Excise officers on 22nd December 2007 shortage of M.S. bars of 131.600 MTs was noticed. This shortage was admitted by shri Ashish Sharma in his statement dated 22.12.2007. He admitted that due to holiday on 21.12.2007 no invoice should be made to show clearance made on 22.12.2007. Since the goods were cleared without payment of duty these clearances are to be treated as clandestine removal of the goods and penalty equal to the duty element is rightly imposed by the original authority under Section 11AC of the Act and rightly confirmed the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in the impugned order. I therefore find no infirmity in the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). I uphold the same and reject the appellants appeal.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) RM 1