TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sole proprietor, the onus was on the appellant to show the substantive proof of trading in the form of documents mentioned above that the appellant failed to discharge its burden. The appellant had suppressed the production and crossed SSI exemption limit in 2005-06 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Ex. Appeal No. 354/11 - Order No. FO/A/75578/2017 - Dated:- 10-4-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri Devender Singh, Technical Member Shri N. K. Chowdhury, Adv., for the Appellant Shri K. Chowdhury, Supdt. (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri Devender Singh The present appeal is filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No.23/Kol.II/ST/2011 dated 24.02.2011 passed by the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement, which is contrary to the balance sheet. The demand was barred by limitation. He submits that while the Department were seized the goods on 09.08.2006, the show-cause notice was issued on 14.02.2008. Since there was no suppression, extended period is not invokable. 4. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the order of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) and stated that the extended period is applicable as the appellant did not obtain registration nor did they submit any return after crossing the SSI exemption limit. The purchase order and payment particulars for the impugned period were obtained from the Chief Controller of Accounts, Jaipur, which revealed that the appellants were to supply the goods manufactured by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctually procured from other manufacturer, job worker or from the open market. We also find that there is variation in the balance sheet figure of finished goods and clearance value of the manufactured product and admitted clearance value of their manufactured product, which casts serious doubt that the appellant did not maintain their account properly. Adjudicating Authority has given a finding that the appellants failed to put forth any reconciliation for such wide variation in accounting figures. In these circumstances, mere balance sheet entry does not support the appellant s case in the absence of proof of documents of trading We also find that the appellant did not disclose to the Department the name of the seller from whom they procur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
