TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, so demand is not sustainable - E/2349/2001 - A/702/2007-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 13-9-2007 - [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This appeal is filed against the order-in-appeal No. ZBN/178/M-V/2001 dated 20-4-2001. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the officers of the Central Excise department visited the factory premises of the appellant and took the physica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oved. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed equivalent amount of penalty, besides that, directed appellant to pay interest as per the provisions of Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. On an appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order and came to the same conclusion. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the demand of duty of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a fit case for confirmation of the orders of the lower authorities. 4. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 5. It is seen from the records that the show cause notice issued to the appellants more specifically at annexure B to the show cause notice, that calculates the shortage, reads as under :- ANNEXURE 'B' Stock of Raw materials 11912.50 Kg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial and consequent presumptive manufacturing of finished goods based upon the shortage of raw material as indicated in the balance sheet. Lower authorities have withdrawn the statutory records, i.e., RG-23A Part I for the relevant period (which is evident from the Annexure "A" to the Panchanama) but have not reproduced the stocks recorded therein anywhere, which would indicate that the book balan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence of such removal. In the current case before us the lower authorities have relied upon the evidence, which do not instill any confidence that the appellants had manufactured and removed goods clandestinely. In the absence of any evidence to indicate that there was a clandestine manufacturing and removal, the impugned orders are unsustainable. 8. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
