ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of imposition of penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because of the reason of availing illegally CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.4,45,860/as basic excise duty and Rs.8,917/as educational cess. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, vide impugned order, held that the assessee no.1 intentionally and willfully suppressed and never disclosed the fact of shortage of 1114.647 MT, i.e. 22293 number of bags of their principal input and that commodity was special cement and the assessee took the benefit of Government revenue absolutely illegally and as already observed, intentionally and willfully and knowing it very well that it was not entitled thereto. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the basic fact, which should have been considered and weighed in the present case, is that the appellant is engaged in big trade and he received total 61,666.20 MT of cement during the year 19992000 to 200506, out of which only 1114.647 MT of cement was found short, which is only 1.8% of the quantity of cement received by the appellant. Therefore, this can be transit loss. The appellant, thus, clearly stated before the authority that it is a transit loss. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the authorities have not recorded finding about guilty of mens rea of the appellant. Further it is submitted that there is a mandatory condition in the proviso 11AC , which says that if the penalty and interest are paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the order of the Central Excise Officer determining the liability, then the assessee can pay 25% of the amount of penalty and interest and rest of the amount can be waived. Such intimation was not recorded in the order itself, nor such offer was given by the Central Excise Officer and therefore, the appellant may be allowed to deposit 25% of the penalty and interest and the rest of the amount may be waived. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of Delhi High Court rendered in the case of K.P.Pouches (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ano. reported in 2008(1)LCX0222. 4. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of Delhi High Court rendered in the case of K.P.Pouches (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ano. reported in 2008(1)LCX0222. 4. Learned counsel also submitted that the Central Excise Officer, appellate authority, Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi, had not applied their mind while passing the order, and order of dismissal of appeals of the appellant which is apparent from the copies of the orders itself. It is submitted that in the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, some portions of the appellant's appeal have been quoted which is entirely in different font than that of the order which may have been dictated by the said Commissioner of Appeals of the Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi. Therefore, this order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone but it has been confirmed by the order of the Appellate Tribunal, which is also liable to be set aside. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per his instruction, due intimation of the right of the appellant to deposit 25% of the amount of penalty and interest within 30 days was given. 6. It appears that the Assessing Officer before imposing penalty recorded facts of the case in detail and also took into consideration that shortage was detected on 13.7.2006 and the requisite amount of credit taken on the shortage quantity of 1114.647 MT of special cement, which is more than 22000 number of bags of cement, was redeposited on 3.2.2007. The authority also clearly observed that the assessee was fully aware of the shortage of input on which the assessee had taken and availed irregular CENVAT credit and recorded a finding of intentional and willful taking of wrongful Government money by the assessee. However, the order of the authority dated 29.1.2010, copy of which has been placed on record by the appellant, certainly creates a doubt that the order may have been passed mechanically and this impression can be due to use of different font in the order dated 29.1.2010 passed by appellate authority and because of quoting the grounds raised by the appellant covering almost all the space of the entire order except two paragraphs in different font. Firstly, in the process of giving brief statement of submission of the appellant, if all the grounds running in several pages are quoted in any order or judgment and that too in a different font, then it may be possible that instruction may have been given to the Steno or any other person to type verbatim the grounds raised in the appeal starting from one point to the last point. It will be appropriate to mention here that in the judgment, if there is reference of previous judgments, then such portion also are required to be quoted, but for the purpose of finding out application of mind upon the ground raised by the appellant, mere quoting of the grounds verbatim and extenso in the order itself cannot be application of mind on the grounds raised by appellant. Such practices are required to be deprecated and the Appellate authority and the Tribunal should be very precise in narrating the facts of the case and the grounds raised by the parties. At this juncture, we may also take note of the fact that the first appellate authority in its order dated 29.1.2010, after quoting the grounds from the memo of appeal, held that shortage found in stock cannot be blindly treated as loss in transit and there are proper procedures and guidelines prescribed for claiming the benefit on such kind of losses and the magnitude of the shortage detected i.e. 22293 of cement bags is astounding and to claim in one stroke that it is all transit loss is incredible. This is a finding of fact. The appellant claimed the benefit of transit loss of 22293 of cement bags and even if, it is in weight a petty quantity as compared to total cement received by the appellant, then also it cannot be said to be insignificant quantity of cement bags for the appellant and small quantity for the revenue. Apart from this, there is no other defence of the appellant on the question of fact and therefore, even in spite of being some fault in the writing of the order by the first appellate authority, Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, we are of the view that no ground is made for interference with the impugned order. 7. So far as benefit of the proviso under section 11AC is concerned, that was available to the appellant as statutory benefit. 7. So far as benefit of the proviso under section 11AC is concerned, that was available to the appellant as statutory benefit. It may be true that the Division Bench of Delhi High Court issued instruction to the authorities to incorporate the intimation to the assessee of condition of payment within 30 days to take the benefit of waiver of 75% of penalty and interest amount but that is a guideline which cannot be the reason for giving benefit to the person who did not deposit the amount in time knowing the law very well and tried to evade the provisions of law and further to the person who did not deposit such amount before preferring the appeal. The appellant, even before lower appellate authority, did not pray to permit him to deposit 25% of the amount of penalty and interest, therefore, we are not inclined to extend that period available under section 11AC and thus, the appellant is not entitled to such benefit. 8. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.