RANJAN PROCESSORS Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 348 (HKS)CE/JPR -II/2007 dated 6.6.2007 by which the order of the original authority demanding duty of Rs. 1,98,576/ - along with interest and imposing penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC was confirmed.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) THE learned Advocate submits that there is no evidence of any clandestine removal. It was a fact that there was shortage on the date of visit by the officers. The shortage was due to clerical mistake as explained by the General Manager (Finance). She submits that the demand is not justified and at any rate, the invocation of extended period of limitation is not warranted. She also submits that in the absence of any evidence of clandestine removal, the question of invoking the proviso to Section 11AC to impose mandatory penalty does not arise.