CCE Vs. KUMAR INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to this appeal by the Revenue and filing of cross objection by the respondent are, in brief, as under:

(2.) Heard both the sides.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. While there is no dispute about the fact that the weighment of MS angles, bars and flats had not been determined by actual weighment, from the Commissioner (Appeals)'s observations in para 6 of the Order in Appeal, and from the facts narrated in the Panchnama dated 8.6.06, it is clear that the officers had earlier requested Shri. Shamit Chand Wani, partner of the Respondents firm to arrange physical weighment of the entire stock of finished goods from outside, but since the Respondents expressed difficulty, on their request it was decided to ascertain the weight of the stock of MS angles, bars & flats by taking representative samples from each lot and multiplying the each sample's weight by the number of pieces of that item. In view of this, it cannot be said that the weight of MS angles bars and flats had been determined purely by eye estimation. By determining the weight in this method excess to the tune of 104 MT in respect of MS angles is not possible, though in respect of MS flats & bars where the alleged excess is 1.63 MT and 7.3 respectively, the benefit of doubt can be given. Therefore, in respect of MS angles, the Commissioner (Appeals) finding that there was no excess is not correct. The judgment in the case of Rana Concast Ltd. (supra) cited by the Appellant is not relevant as this is not a case where weight of the finished goods had been determined purely by eye estimation.