P.S. Bajaj, Member (J) - (1.)In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned order -in -appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order -in -original against the present appellants regarding confirmation of duty and imposition of penalty. He had, however, set aside the penalty against the partner imposed under Rule 209 A of the Rules.
(2.)The learned Consultant has contended that except for the statement of Shekhar Aggarwal, partner of the appellants firm, there is no evidence to prove that there was shortage of inputs in the factory premises. No panchnama was prepared. He has also contended that even the statement of Shekhar Aggarwal cannot be looked into for want of signatures of any officer of the Central Excise under it and that the same was also retracted through a letter dated 2 -3 -2000. No independent witness was also joined at the time of verification of the goods lying in the factory of the appellants and no record was signed by the officers of the Central Excise. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. To substantiate his contention, the Consultant has placed reliance on the ratio of law laid down in DM, Gears P. Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi -I - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 514, Dhebar Steel Re -rollers and Anr. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur - [2002 (142) E.L.T. 194 (Tri.) = 2002 (52) RLT 42] and Sober Plastics P. Ltd. and Anr. v. CCE, Jaipur -2002 (139) E.L.T. 562 (Tri.) - 2001 (47) RLT 1030.
(3.)On the other hand the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.