2013 (7) TMI 600

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i P.K. Sharma, AR JUDGEMENT Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PCC Poles. During the course of audit, it was seen that there was difference of 283 pieces of PCC poles in the invoice issued by the appellant and the number of poles cleared as per stock register. The Revenue entertained a view that such difference of 283 pieces of PCC Po .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue to inadvertent entry of no. of poles as 1598 in the Return instead of the correct figure of 1698 that is reflected in the Stock Register. It is reiterated that although the no. of poles has been mentioned in the Return as 1598, duty has been paid on the entire quantity of 1698 poles with an assessable value of Rs. 15,09,628.00. (b) July-Sep. 07: The discrepancy of 5 no. of poles between the St .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he above explanation does not stand accepted by the Assistant Commissioner who observed that the appellant could not reconcile the difference of 283 poles at the time of audit and even during adjudication they are not having any evidence in support of their contention. As such, he confirmed the demand of Rs.50,615.00 along with imposition of penalty of identical amount. 4. On appeal against the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... figures of invoice & returns being incorrect. It shows that the appellant has not paid duty on 283 poles and removed them clandestinely. This observation has remained uncontroverted in substance and essence. 5. After going through the impugned orders and after appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, I find that demand of duty stands confirmed in respect of 283 poles on the allegation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellant, Revenue has not been able to adduce any other evidence on record to indicate that said difference in number of poles stand cleared by them clandestinely. The heavy onus placed upon the Revenue is not discharged. As such, I find no merit in the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Pronounce in the open Court on 01.07.2013 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X