ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
1. Respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and M/s Pratibha Engineering Works are their job worker. During stock taking at the job worker’s premises, it was noticed that goods valued at Rs. 4,56,049/- involving duty of Rs. 72,968/-were received in excess and goods valued at Rs. 6,96,197/- involving duty of Rs. 1,11,392/- were received short for job work. Show Cause Notice was issued proposing recovery of duty of seized goods, on excesses and shortages, and proposing imposition of penalty. The duty demand on excess and shortage was confirmed and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty under Rule 173Q but dropped the duty demand and set aside penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.
2. I have heard both sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the contention of the respondents that copies of documents on the basis of which duty was quantified and documents such as Form V Register, Rule 57F(4) challan, stock register, delivery challans etc. required for preparation of the defence, were not supplied to them. She has dropped the proceedings on the further ground that excess and shortage was detected on the job worker’s premises and not at the premises of the respondents. No satisfactory arguments have been put forth to justify setting aside of the impugned order and prayer for remand made by the learned D.R., for the purpose of department establishing its case on the basis of Rule 57F(4) challans cannot be acceded to, for the reason that the Show Cause Notice only relies upon oral evidence, in the form of statements and does not rely upon any documentary evidence such as job work challans etc. and therefore such challans cannot be relied upon at this stage.
3. In the light of above discussion, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
(Pronounced in Court)