TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... burden in case of clandestine activities is upon the Revenue. In the present case, I find that sole basis of Revenue to raise the demand is a difference in the figures, as detected by the Audit, without their being any difference in the opening and closing balance. As such, I find no justification for upholding the impugned orders - appeal allowed - decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 51997 of 2016- (SM) - Order No. FO/53983/2016-(SM); - Dated:- 5-10-2016 - Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Ms Shreya Dahiya, Advocate for the Appellants Shri Dharam Singh, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots and MS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product, which stand cleared without payment of duty to the tune of ₹ 6,66,412/-. Accordingly, notice proposed to confirm the same also along with the confirmation of interest and imposition of penalties. 4. During the course of adjudication, the appellant contested the same on the ground that during the course of visit of audit team, neither any of excess of raw material nor the finished goods was found. The fact that all the raw materials and the finished goods were entered in the books of accounts stand established and as such, it cannot be said that there was any suppressed production or clandestine removal of their final product. The allegations are based upon inference involving unwarranted assumptions and vitiated by an err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above pleas of the appellant and confirmed the demand to the extent of ₹ 28,01,436/- by disallowing the cenvat credit and also confirmed the demand of ₹ 6,66,412/- on the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal. In addition, interest was also confirmed and penalty of identical amounts were imposed under section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act. 6. The said order of Additional Commissioner was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 7. After going through the impugned order and after hearing both the sides duly represented by Ms. Shreya Dahiya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri Dharam Singh, learned AR appearing for the Revenue, I find that the demand s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... repared according to Excise law and procedure but the same is prepared in terms of Company Act. To the similar effect is another decision of Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhubaneswar [2001 (47)RLT 343 (CEGAT-Cal]). laying down that difference in figures of manufacture and clearance between the annual financial account and RG I, are not sufficient to establish clandestine removal. In the case of Utkal Galvanisers Ltd. vs. CCE, [2003 (158) ELT 42 (Tri-Kol]) and in case of CCE, Patna vs. Universal Polyethylene Industries [2001 (130) ELT 228 (Tri)], the same views were upheld. 9. Admittedly, the appellant had taken the credit on the basis of invoices and in respect of the goods received in their factory. To c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
