COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. VIMAL ALLOYS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This appeal has been directed against the order -in -appeal by the Revenue, vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order -in -original confirming the duty of Rs. 6,810/ - on account of shortage of goods against the respondents and imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/ -.

(2.) I have heard both the sides. From the record, it is quite evident that on taking physical verification of the stock lying in the factory premises of the respondents by the officers on 14 -1 -99, shortage 1.816 MTs of steel casting involving duty of Rs. 6,810/ - was found against the recorded balance in the RG -I. The Manager of the respondents was present at that time and admitted the shortage and the respondents even debited the duty on the spot in their RG 23A Part II vide entry No. 459 dated 14 -1 -99. The argument of the Counsel that no corroborative evidence has been adduced by the Department to prove the shortage, cannot be accepted being wholly misconceived. When the authorised representative of the respondents (Manager) present at the spot himself admitted the shortage detected on physical verification of the goods was conducted by the officers, the Department was not further required to produce any corroborative evidence. Rather, the burden, was on the respondents to prove that the admission made by their representative was factually incorrect or obtained from him under coercion or duress. The authorised representative never retracted his own statement at any stage. Rather the respondents acted on his admission and debited the duty.

(3.) It was not essential for the Department to prove any clandestine removal 5f the goods as observed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, when the shortage of the goods was not contested by the respondents who even debited the duty amount. The ratio of law laid down in 1998 (101) E.L.T. 483 relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, is not attracted to the case of the respondents. That was a case pertaining to clandestine removal of the goods and confirmation of duty on that account.