CCE Vs. PARDA STEELS PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri . S. Gautam, Departmental Representative present for the appellant. None present for the respondent.

(2.) This appeal arises from order dated 16 July 2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Indore, whereby the appeal field by the respondent against the order of the original authority has been set aside. Under order dated 20 July 2000, the Joint Commissioner, Indore had confirmed the liability of excise duty on the respondent amounting to Rs. 5,18,093 alongwith interest thereon and had also imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944 and further penalty of Rs. 1.00 Lakh under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules 1944 for the contravention of Rule 52A, 9(1), 53, and 173G of the Central Excise Rules 1944.

(3.) The ld. AR while assailing the impugned order submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the verification of the stock was not done physically and in contravention of the law laid down by the Tribunal contrary to the decision of Collector v. Nagpal Steel (P) Ltd. reported in, 1995 (79) ELT 462. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in holding that the Department could not have invoked the extended period of limitation. According to the ld. DR the records clearly disclose that verification of stock was conducted under Panchnama in the presence of 2 Panchas and respondent's representative and the said point was never disputed. On the contrary the authorized signatory of the respondent had clearly admitted the same in his statement under Section 14 of the said Act. He further submitted that once the factum of suppression of the relevant material leading to clandestine removal of the finished product by the respondent having been established, the provisions of Section 11AC of the said Act were clearly attracted and, therefore, the Department was justified in invoking the extended period of limitation.