TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely because their electricity consumption for production of per M.T. of their finished products MS Flats, MS Squares, MS Rounds etc. had varied from 150 units per M.T. to 786 units per M.T. it cannot be presumed that they have under reported their production. In view of this, the duty demand of ₹ 5,77,725/- has been correctly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). As regards, duty demand of ₹ 1,05,611/- based on the difference between the value of sales as reflected in their ER-1 returns for 2006-2007 and as reflected in their books of accounts, we have find that the Commissioner (Appals) has discussed this matter in detail and we agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that merely on the basis of this differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata and that the trades mentioned in the copy of contract notes issued by the Member M/s Ramdoot Management are not matching with the trades executed in the exchange. On the basis of this letter, the Department was of the view that the transactions of commodity trading shown by the respondent are bogus transactions and that the income of ₹ 35,05,614/- shown for the year 2006-2007 is actually the income from the respondent s clandestine removal of their finished goods on which, the duty involved is ₹ 5,77,725/-. 1.2 It was also found that there was difference between the sales declared in the ER-1 returns filed during different months of 2006-2007 and also the sales figures as reflected in their books of acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty demand alongwith interest under Section 11AB and imposed penalty of equal amount on the respondent under Section 11AC. However, on appeal being filed to CCE (Appeals), he, vide order-in-appeal dated 21/8/12, holding that the evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain the allegation of duty evasion against the respondent he set aside the Additional Commissioner s order. Against this order of the CCE (Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri R.K. Grover, the learned DR, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and pleaded that when the Assistant Vice President of the MCX has confirmed that as per the records of the Commodity Exchange, the respondent were not registered as a cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 was 37% is also an indication that the appellant were not reflecting their actual production in their books of accounts, that beside this, the value addition based on the cost of production and the sales price realised also shows that the respondent have been under valuing their goods as value addition during 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 is 55.37% and -7.12% respectively which is not possible. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that the respondent during 2006-2007 had earned an income of ₹ 35,05,614/- from Commodity Trading on MCX, that the transactions in commodity trading were through M/s Ramdoot Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The duty demand of ₹ 5,77,725/- is based on the allegation that during profit and loss account for the year 2006-2007 of the respondent, they have shown an income of ₹ 35,05,614/- from commodity trading on MCX while inquiry with the commodity exchange indicated that their transactions were bogus. On this basis, the Department has presumed that this income was the sale proceeds of the finished goods manufactured and sold them without accountal in their books of accounts. In this regard the main evidence relied upon by the Department is the letter dated 29/9/09 of the Assistant Vice President of the Commodity Exchange informing that the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
