1. The appellants herein are engaged in manufacture of Iron and Steel Products falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and also availing modvat credit facility on inputs used in the manufacture of final products. The officers of Central Excise (Prev) visited the factory of the appellants on 07/09/95 and detected shortage of inputs, such as M.S. Slabs, M.S. Angles and other re-rollable material to the extent of 555.843 MTs, as compared to the stock recorded on that date in the RG23A Part-I register. In addition, 12.000 MTs of M.S. Slab out of the total quantity of 42.725 MT of total inputs was found outside the factory premises. The physical weighment of the finished goods took place resulting in detection of shortage of certain quantity of M.S. Angles and M.S. Squares as well as excess unaccounted stock of M.S.Z. Section. The total quantity of 64.395 MT of excisable goods was thus cleared b the appellants on delivery memos without payment of duty and without issue of proper invoice. Show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 9,50,492/- on shortage of modvatable inputs, Rs. 19,800/- on seized M.S. Slabs, Rs. 1,49,986/- on M.S. Angles found short and Rs. 45,129/- on excess unaccounted quantity of M.S. 'Z' Section as well as duty of Rs. 1,648/- on shortage of M.S. Square and Rs. 1,06,252/- on excisable goods cleared on delivery memo without payment of duty. The total duty amount covered in the notice was Rs. 12,73,307/-. Penal action was also proposed in the notice.
2. The notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur, who confirmed the demands raised in the show cause notice confiscated M.S. 'Z' section and M.S. Slabs with option to redeem the same on payment of fine and also imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants; hence this appeal.
3. None appears for the appellants in respect of notice; hence I heard the Ld. SDR and perused the records.
4. I find that duty demands have been confirmed on the basis of shortage and excess and the appellants have not put forth, in their appeal before the Tribunal, any satisfactory or convincing ground for setting aside the same.
5. The adjudicating authority has dealt with the defence of the appellants before him and given detailed finding on each of the demands raised. I, therefore, hold that duty demands are sustainable. Penalty for contravention of relevant Rule is also sustainable and, hence, I uphold the same.