Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (5) TMI 1196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant on 18/6/2008 which continued to 19/6/2008. The inspection team inpected the records and stock of raw materials and finished goods in presence of the director and two independent panch witnesses. During the inspection the stock of finished goods of MS ingots and MS bar was found to be huge, and Actual weighment of the whole stock was not feasible. With the consent of the director sample weighment of MS ingots and of MS Bars was done for convenience and thereafter the total quantity of stock available in the factory premises was estimated by multiplying the quantity with the average weight of one MS ingot of the sample. The production of ingots on the date of inspection was excluded and the same was stored separately. Total ingot w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... satisfaction as to the manner of stocktaking. Further on 19/6/2008 the appellant deposited Rs. 4,11,003/- for shortage of MS ingots and Rs. 8,21,810/- towards shortage of MS bar. After a few days the Director Mr Jalan was again interrogated on 7/7/08 under section 14 of the Act. On the said date the director explained the discrepancy in the stock detected for the reason that immediately on production the ingots are very hot and cannot be touched by hand. Production is recorded on estimated weight. Further the person reporting the production figures is hardly matriculate and production and stock figures are bound to vary on actual weighment. He admitted the contents of his statement dated 19/6/08. It appeared to revenue that in absence of c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ortage twice under section 14 of the Act obliterates, the denial made and dispute raised soon after inspection. 5. Being aggrieved the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel has drawn my attention to the Panchnama drawn at the time of inspection. The inspection commenced at 11 AM on 18/6/2008 and was concluded on 19/6/08 at about 4 AM. Further the calculation sheet annexed to the panchnama, for verification of stock states that average weight of one MS ingot was assertained after weighment of four bundles and thereafter the said weight was multiplied with the number of ingots and accordingly the stock was assessed at 433.91 MT. Similarly, for ascertaining the stock of MS bar average weight of one bundle of MS bar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a reverification by Actual weighment which was not done by the revenue without there being any justification for the same. It is also stated that MS ingots are of different sizes and weight. The weight varies between 106 to 147 Kgs. as MS ingots are not homogeous in shape and size. For that the weight also depends upon the cross-section of ingot which varies widely from one ingot to the other. Further, MS Bars were of different diameters such as, 10 mm, 16 mm, 20 mm and 25 mm. Thus, if MS Bars are cut to same size, still the weight is bound to vary. It is further urged that less than 1% of the stock was actually weighed and the average weight was multiplied with the number of MS Ingots. Thus, there is bound to be discrepancy and variation i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he impugned order with the grant of consequential relief. It is also urged that at the stage of production, ingot is in hot and molton condition and as such production is recorded on estimation basis. The Actual weighment is done only at the time of sale/clearance. 7. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 8. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that there is discrepancy in the manner of stock taking. Such manner of stocktaking can give only an estimation and an approximate result. Based on such an approximate calculation which is in the nature of eye estimation, no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant. It is further evident that the statement recorded of the director on 19/6/08 was recorded i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates