Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, the Department filed an appeal before the Commissioner Appeals , Bangalore.
He again stated that the mistake was also due to the clubbing of different Modvat inputs companying under the same heading.
On 25.10.1996, Superintendent of Central Excise visited the factory premises of the respondent assessee for verification of the stock of inputs on which Modvat credit was availed.
Aggrieved by the said order dated 25.10.2005, the respondent assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner Appeals but the Commissioner Appeals dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 23.1.2006.
Further, a penalty of Rs.1,91,537/ was imposed u s 11AC of the Act and interest u s 11AB of the Act was made payable by the respondent assessee.
The Managing Director of the respondent assessee, in his statement dated 25.10.1996 given before the Superintendent of Central Excise, West Range, Mangalore, admitted that the actual physical stock of inputs and entries in the RG23A Part 1 Register did number tally because the respondent assessee had removed the Modvatable inputs for sales and warranty replacements.
After companysidering the reply and upon hearing a representative of the respondent assessee, the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise vide his order in original Sl.
1,91,537, equivalent to the Modvat credit availed on the shortage of physical stock of Modvatable inputs should number be recovered from it and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to as the Act read with Rule 173Q and Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 be number imposed and interest thereon should number be recovered from it under Section 11AB of the Act.
He also companyceded that, due to the aforestated mistakes, the figure of RG23A Part I did number reflect the actual quantity in stocks and enclosed a detailed worksheet showing monthly figures of opening balance, receipts, issues and closing balance for the past years.
51,111/ was number taken into companysideration by the Joint Commissioner and the Commissioner Appeals .
The Commissioner Appeals , by the virtue of the order in appeal No.
Being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner Appeals , the respondent assessee filed an appeal before CESTAT, Bangalore.
They had proceeded only on the basis of the first statement recorded.
14/2000 dated 09.08.2000, dropped further proceedings in the matter after giving a warning to the respondent assessee.
591/2002 dated 04.10.2002, allowed the appeal.
The Managing Director of the respondent assessee also admitted the discrepancy i.e. shortage in the stock of inputs and stated that their office assistant, who was maintaining their books of accounts, was only a matriculate and being a number technical person, companymitted mistakes.
The CESTAT did number agree with the reasons assigned by the Commissioner Appeals for allowing the appeal and remanded the matter to the original authority, for verification of the assessees companytention and for passing a detailed, companysidered order after taking into companysideration the entire evidence on record.
Out of the said amount, Rs.76,111/ already paid by the assessee had been appropriated.
It was numbericed that there was a vast difference between physical stocks available and that shown in RG23A Part 1 Register.
The CESTAT, Bangalore, by the order No.
On 26.06.2000, a show cause numberice was issued to the respondent assessee calling upon it to show cause as to why Central Excise Duty of Rs.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, the Appellant Revenue has filed this appeal before this Court.
On appeal before the High Court of Karnataka, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue by holding that the Tribunal had rightly recorded a finding of fact stating that initiation of proceedings against the respondent assessee was barred by limitation.
59/2007 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, this appeal has been filed by the Revenue.
In pursuance of the aforestated order, after hearing the parties, the Joint Commissioner vide his order dated 25.10.2005 companyfirmed the duty demand of Rs.1,91,537/ under Rule 57 I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with proviso to Section 11A 1 of the Act.
ANIL R. DAVE, J. Delay companydoned.
The companyrect figure was shown in his letter dated 21.1.1997 with all the details, admitting liability of Rs.51, 111/ due to the said lapses.
Leave granted.
Being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 1st July, 2008 delivered in the CEA No.
