Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (1) TMI 1011

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Moreover, the show-cause notice also alleged that the appellants are not maintaining the statutory records in the manner prescribed under the law. In that event, the clandestine removal cannot be alleged. As it is an admitted fact that the appellants are not maintaining their records as prescribed under the law, they are liable to be penalized under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 confirmed to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, otherwise the appeals of the appellants are allowed as discussed here-in-above. - E/3446 & 3479/03 - A/57-58/2011-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 12-1-2011 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Appearance: Shri. Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for appellant Shri.V.K. Singh, SDR, for respondent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tra State Electricity Board, NTPC, etc. and after procuring purchase orders, they used to make tailor made goods as per the requirements of the purchaser and on every meter length of the cable, the name of the purchaser is embossed showing the proprietary interest on the finished goods of the purchaser. He fairly agreed that the appellant was not maintaining the accounts of their raw material and finished goods properly as due to holidays on 26 27th January 1999, the clearances made by the appellant prior to that period were not properly entered in the statutory records. Moreover, the inputs, which were gone in work in progress were also not debited in the statutory accounts. He further submitted that there is no allegation against the ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ies on the case laws in the case of Ranasaria Polypack Pvt Ltd., Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad, reported in 2009 (247) ELT 700 (Tri.-Ahmd). He also relied on Arya Abhushan Bhandar Vs. UOI, reported in 2002 (143) ELT 25 (SC) and CCE Vs.Omkar Textile Mills Pvt Ltd., reported in 2010 (259) ELT 687 (Guj.). 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the stock taking was done in the presence of the authorised representative of the appellants and who was not able to explain the shortages found during the course of stock taking and it is on record that certain shortages were found during the course of stock taking. Hence, the department is not required to bring the corroborative evidence on record for clandestine removal of the goods. He further subm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ne into manufacturing, the day when the stock taking was done on inputs. If any inputs has been found short, the same has to be examined whether that inputs has gone into the process for manufacturing or not, which was not done by the department. It is also on record that the appellants have issued certain invoices of finished goods on 25.01.99 and earlier also, which were not recorded in their RG-1 register. In fact the clearances made against these impugned invoices were also not considered by the authorities below while alleging shortages of finished goods. Moreover, the appellant has been able to produce on record, the explanation to the shortages found during the course of investigation. No consideration to these explanations was given .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case of Alagappa Cements Pvt Ltd., (supra) is also no help to the DR as in that case after explanation given by the assessee, the demand was reduced but in this case the explanation given by the appellants were not considered by the lower authorities saying that these explanations are after thought. The case of Maxworth Plywood Pvt Ltd., (supra) is also no help to the department as in that case also it was found that the assessee was unable to justify the shortages, but that is not in this case. Moreover, the case law cited by the Ld. Advocate is more relevant to this case in the case of Ranasaria Polypack Pvt Ltd. (supra), wherein this Tribunal has held that clandestine removal cannot be based upon merely shortages without any other r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates