ORDER
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. In this appeal, the appellants have made challenge to the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Order-in-Original against the appellant company in respect of duty and penalty while setting aside the penalty against the Director.
2. The duty of the amount, in dispute (rupees 2,18,992/-) has been confirmed against company on account of shortage of the finished goods detected by the officers at the time of stock verification in the factory of the appellants on 25.6.1999. The short found goods involved duty of rupees 1,04,404/-. The duty has been also confirmed against the appellant company on account of shortage of the raw-material and the finished goods as detailed in the impugned order itself, which was detected by the officers at the time of visit to their factory on 25.6.1999. The total duty involved on both the goods was worked out to rupees 2,18,922/-.
3. The learned Counsel has contended that the shortage was arrived at by the officers only on assumption and not the actual weighment of the goods. Therefore, the impugned order on this ground is liable to be set aside. But, in my view, this contention of the learned Counsel is misconceived when the officers of the Central Excise Department visited the factory of the appellants, Shri Ajay Paliwal, authorized signatory of the appellants was present. He never objected to the mode adopted by the officers for the physical verification of the raw-material and the finished goods. The Panchnama, drawn at the spot, contained details of the shortages of the raw-material and the finished goods. File subsequent statement of Vinod Kumar Jaiswal, Director of the company that stock verification was not properly conducted and shortage was arrived at on the eye estimation, in my view, has been rightly not accepted by the authorities below, lie was not present at the time of the preparation of the Panchnama. The authorised signatory of the company, named above who was present, expressed his satisfaction with the mode adopted by the officers for arriving at shortage of the goods. That person never retracted his statement. At no stage, lateron, even any Director of the appellant company made a request in writing or orally to the officers for re-verification of the stock in his presence. In these circumstances, the contention of the learned Counsel, detailed above, is without merit. The duty in respect of short found inputs and the finished goods, in my view, has been rightly confirmed against the appellants.
The record also shows that 263 pieces of grinding media balls were found in excess in the factory which were not entered in the record. The appellants had been given option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of rupees 1,500/- I do not find any illegality in the impugned order in this regard. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the part of duty had been deposited by the appellants, the penalty under Section 11AC is reduced to rupees 40,000/-. The penalty under Rule 173Q is, however, maintained. In the light of discussion made above, the impugned order is up-held with the above modification. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court).