9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gone through the case records and the submissions made by the appellants. I observe that: The entire case is based on the differences in the stock of the impugned goods as reflected in the Balance sheets vis-a-vis RG1 registers. The allegation in the show cause notices was that the appellants have "suppressed the production of the above mentioned goods with an intention to clear the same without payment of Central Excise Duty". It has neither been alleged in the Show Cause Notices that the appellants have resorted to clandestine clearance of the goods nor has recorded any evidence in support of their contention that the appellants had the intention to clear the impugned goods without payment of duty. The Department had failed to bring in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oration Ltd. reported in 2002 (150) ELT 1189 (Tri-Bang.) = 2002 (53) RLT 196 (CEGAT-Ban.), has held that higher sale figures shown in the Balance Sheet vis-a-vis RC figures explained as inclusive of sales of traded goods, cannot be made the evidence of allegation for clandestine removal in the absence of any other independent evidence. To the same effect is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar reported in 2001 (47) RLT 343 (CEGAT Kol.), laying down that difference in figures of manufacture and clearance between annual financial account and RG-I, are not sufficient to establish clandestine removal. In another case reported in 2001 (130) ELT 228 (Tri.) = ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the assessee to prove that they have not manufactured and cleared the goods. 3. The learned Consultant submits that mere fact of discrepancy in the Balance Sheet and the RG1 figures will not be a ground to come to a conclusion that there has been manufacture of final goods to a large extent and clearance of the goods without payment of duty. He submits that it is a well laid down law that the Revenue has to show that there has been purchase of inputs and the utilization of the same in the manufacture of the final products, electrical consumption, sale of goods to the specific buyers and flow back of funds. There is no evidence of even transporters to show that goods were removed or any statement from any person to support the plea that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
