TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entire period of dispute, there is no evidence that the officers had conducted physical stock taking of the Cenvated inputs and had detected shortage in respect of the same. Thus the case against the appellant is not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside. The appeals as well as stay applications are allowed. - E/1859 and 1943/2012 - A/1236-1237/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 16-10-2012 - Ajit Bharihoke and Rakesh Kumar,JJ. Shri Ravinder Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.S. Negi, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)] The appellant firm is a manufacturer of paint. Shri Sudhir Mehta is the Proprietor of the appellant firm. During the period of dispute, they were availing Cenvat credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these matters are listed for hearing of stay applications only, after hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the appeals themselves can be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and the appeals are heard for final disposal. 2. Shri Ravinder Singh, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that impugned order is not sustainable for the reason that the Jurisdictional Commissioner has come to the conclusion of clandestine removal only on the basis of monthly stock statement submitted by the appellants to their bank, that beside this, there is no evidence of clandestine removal, that the department has neither examined any buyer nor they have examined the invoices issued duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. We find that the only basis of the demand raised against the appellant is that while in some cases, in the monthly statements to bank regarding stock of raw material, the appellant were showing some stock in the RG-23A Pt. I register there was nil stock in other cases, the stock of cenvated inputs reflected in RG-23A Pt. I register was less than the stock of inputs reported in statements to the bank. We find that other than this discrepancy, there is absolutely no evidence of removal of the cenvated inputs to anybody. For the entire period of dispute, there is no evidence that the officers had conducted physical stock taking of the cenvated inputs and had detected shortage in respect of the same. In view of this, we hold that the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
