TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NO.: 76142/2018 - Dated:- 13-3-2018 - Shri P.K. Choudhary And Shri C.J. Mathew, JJ. Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate Sri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For Appellant. Sri A. Roy, Supdt. (A.R.) For The Respondent. Per Coram Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products classifiable under Chapter 72 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. Show Cause Notices dated 30.01.91 and 31.03.92 were issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, DSP Range-I proposing demand of duty as per Rule 223A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the shortage of goods. 3. By the impugned Order, the Learned Commissioner of Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants. There is no allegation that the appellants have removed goods in clandestine manner. Moreover, the stock taking was done by the appellants themselves. The departmental officers only associated with the same. Hence, the stock taking cannot be said to have been conducted in terms of 223A of the Central Excise Rules. In any case the shortage arrived at is based on estimates. The estimate cannot be said to be very accurate as it has got its own limitations. It should also be appreciated that there are practical problems in steel plants in the matter of accounting of their production. The CBEC Circular NO.52/79 CX.6 dated 26.10.1979 has also laid down certain guidelines with regard to condonation of losses observed during annual s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the demand of duty made by the adjudicating authority cannot be sustained. Therefore, we allow the appeals with consequential relief . The Tribunal in the case of Rourkela Steel Plant (SAIL) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, 2001 (137) ELT 566 (Tri-Kol) allowed the appeal on the same issue. 9. We agree with the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate that based upon the difference shown in the annual financial accounts and RG-1 register, the findings of the clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained against the appellants. It is well settled law that onus to prove clandestine manufacture and clearance is upon the Revenue and required to be proved by production of sufficient evidence. There is nothing on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
