TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copies of some of annexures of the RUDs. Clandestine removal - shortage of raw material and finished goods - The stock was ascertained making use of the dip reading method. The appellants grievance is that this is not an accurate method of ascertaining stock - Held that: - the method has been adopted by the departmental officers only after obtaining the concurrence of the appellant’s representative who was present during the panchnama proceedings - the appellant is liable to pay the duty on the finished products found short as well as reverse the modvat credit on the inputs which were found in short - demand upheld. Clandestine removal - finished products - it has been alleged that the appellant has removed 3996.286 MT of formaldehyd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed against the Order-in-Original No. RPR/EXCUS/000/COM/009/2017 dated 04.07.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Customs Central Excise, Raipur. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Formaldehyde falling under Central Excise Tariff heading 2912 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing the modvat credit/ cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs. One of the main raw materials used in the manufacture of Formaldehyde was methanol on which cenvat credit was being availed. Central Excise Officers visited the factory and office premises of the appellant on 05.03.1999 and recovered various records and also conducted physical stock verification. Finished goods (Formaldehyde) to the extent of 262.40 MT as well as raw mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advanced the following grievances against the impugned order. (i) The case was remanded by this Tribunal in the last round of litigation with the direction to share copies of all the relevant documents. However, only Annexure- 1 to 5, 7 to 20 and 20 to 25 have been provided to the appellant on 10.01.2006. Still RG-I register for three years, RG-23A register and Form-4 register was not provided them. Hence, the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. (ii) It has been alleged that a total quantity of 3996.286 MT of Formaldehyde has been clandestinely cleared. However, as per the registration certificate of the Directorate of Industries, the appellant s manufacturing capacity was only to the extent of 3,000 M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier round of litigation is that copies of all the RUDs have not been shared by the Revenue with them. We have perused of the long list of RUDs vis-a-vis, the documents which have already been made available to the appellant and we are convinced that all the main documents leading to the demand and its computation has already been shared with the appellant. Hence, we are of the view that they have been given a fair opportunity to advance the case against them, even in the absence of copies of some of annexures of the RUDs. Hence, we proceed to adjudicate the case on merit. 8. The search was conducted in the business premises on 05.03.1999 during which shortages were noticed both in the finished products as well as raw material in stock. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emist of the appellant, it has been concluded that this quantity of methanol can produce 1378.595 MT of formaldehyde. 10. The quantity of formaldehyde manufactured has been independently ascertained on the basis of lab test report register, formaldehyde analysis report, transport documents as well as shortage noticed at the time of stock taking. Accordingly, it has been alleged that the appellant has removed 3996.286 MT of formaldehyde during the period under consideration and duty demand on the same has been confirmed. 11. The appellant has seriously challenged the total quantity of formaldehyde allegedly manufactured and clandestinely removed. It is their submission that the installed production capacity of the appellant factory is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority. It will be reasonable to restrict the demand to the quantity of 1378.595 MT of formaldehyde manufactured out of the unaccounted methanol which has been consumed to the extent of 453.302 MT. In addition, the appellant will also be liable for payment of duty on the shortage of raw material as well as finished products. 13. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is sustained to the extent of the quantity indicated above. We set aside the demand over the quantity indicated above. Matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to requantify the demand and redecide the penalties on the basis of the revised computation. 14. In the result, the impugned order is modified and case is remanded for re- quantification of dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
