CCE Vs. RATHI BARS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are arising out of common order and, therefore, both are being taken up together for disposal.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of CTD Bars classifiable under Chapter 72 of the of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Central Excise officers visited the respondent's factory on two occasions on 13.8.2001 and 31.7.2002 and conducted stock verification. The said officers detected shortage of finished goods and inputs on both the occasions. Shri Ajay Kumar Malhotra, Authorized Signatory of the assessee admitted shortage and debited the duty of Rs. 5,13,300/ - and Rs. 1,84,913/ - on both the occasions. Show cause notices dated 13.10.2005 and 25.10.2005 were issued proposing to appropriate the amount deposited by the assessee and to impose penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty and appropriated the amounts as deposited by them and imposed penalty of equal amounts in both the cases. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty and set aside the penalties in both the cases. Hence, the assessee filed appeal No. 926/07 against demand of duty of Rs. 5,13,300/ - and the Revenue filed two appeals against setting aside the penalties imposed in two adjudication orders.

(3.) I find that shortage of stock were detected on 13.8.2001 and 31.7.2002. The assessee admitted the shortage and paid the duty voluntarily without any protest. It appears that in reply to show cause notice the assessee contended that stock taking was not conducted in proper manner. It is seen that shortages were detected on 13.8.2001 and 31.7.2002 and Show Cause Notices were issued on 13.10.2005 and 25.10.2005. It is noted that prior to show cause notices, respondent had not raised any objection against shortage of goods and payment of duty. On the contrary, they had admitted shortage and paid duty long before issue of notices. So the contention of the learned Advocate that stock taking was on the basis of eye estimation cannot be accepted. I also agree with the submission of the learned D.R. that it was proposed in the show cause notice to appropriate the amount as deposited by the assessee. So, the contention of the learned Advocate that demand of duty is barred by limitation is not sustainable. Hence, I uphold the demand of duty and accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is rejected.