TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Tribunal, as the last fact finding authority, performed its duty in law and interfered with the orders, though concurrently rendered. Once they were interfered because they were found to be perverse and vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of the record, then, the impugned order of the Tribunal in that behalf does not raise any substantial question of law. - Decided against the revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. 109 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2015 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And Sunil P. Deshmukh,JJ. For the Appellant : Ms Suchitra Kamble For the Respondents : Mr Prakash Shah, Mr Jas Sanghavi M/s PDS Legal ORDER P.C. This Appeal challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6th December, 1998. Thus, the loose quantity of fabrics produced or manufactured prior to this date will be covered under the advalorem duty scheme. She invited our attention to the entries which have been made in the stock register and compiled as an Annexure to this paper book. She further submits that the show cause notice specifically made these allegations and, when the matter was before the adjudicating authority, he found that in view of the change in the duty structure and applicable to the fabrics processed on or before 16th December, 1998, the stock position of finished goods, which have been held at about midnight on 15th December, 1998, has been verified and confirmed by the staff deployed for the purposes to demarking clear sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods was declared by the Assessee to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional authority, then, the quantity declared alone was subjected to duty. The stock of manufactured goods was required to be accepted. The claim for duty in respect of the additional stock of 6,47,801.45 lacs meters in loose condition was not justified. That was not justified also because of the additional reason assigned in para 3 of the Tribunal's order, namely, that this stock was subsequently carried forward from 16th December, 1998 for further manufacture along with fresh issues. Mr. Shah therefore submits that the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and deserves to be dismissed. 6. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been accounted in the RG1 register. However, the Tribunal rightly found that on one hand the Revenue relies upon the entries in this register and on the other hand, it terms the stock as loose. It is clear from the argument of the Assessee, which has been referred in the order of the Tribunal in para 2 that the declarations were accepted after due verification. Once the stock, as declared in the register, has been verified and accepted, then, the Revenue could not have subsequently argued to the contrary. The Revenue's insistence on terming the goods or the stock has not been found to be justified. The allegations of the Revenue in that behalf were held to be not established and proved. Beyond the stock register (RG1) and entries the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
