9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Notification No. 9/2003-CE on the clearances of their finished goods, in the financial year 2003-2004 as the aggregate value of clearances during the previous year 2002-2003 remained within the limit of Rs. 3 crores. Based on an intelligence, the officers of central excise visited the factory of the appellant No. 1 and found that there was shortage of the stock of CTD/M.S. Round Bars less by 107.0271 M.T. valued at Rs. 15,39,339/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,46,294/- and stock of M. S. waste and scrap was short/less by 118.664 M.T. valued at Rs. 1,30,648/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 20,9044/-. The statements of Power of Attorney of appellant No. 1 and partner of appellant No. 1 were recorded. A show cause notice was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.05.2003 to 09.06.2003 while there was no production in their factory from 26.05.2003 to 31.05.2003. He submits copies of the Daily Stock Account (RG-I Register) for the month of May 2003 and June 2003 and statements of finished goods from 28.05.2003 to 09.06.2003 and statement of clearance of waste and scrap and bill dated 30.08.2003. He also submitted the copies of ER-3 Returns for 2003-2004 and quarterly ER-I Return for July, August and September filed on 15.10.2003. Contention is that the documentary evidence was not considered by Commissioner (Appeals), it was also contented that the benefit of small scale exemption had been unfairly denied to them merely on presumption. He relied upon the following case laws:- (i) Suntrek Aluminu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cale exemption is tentative and not categorical. We also find that in the show cause notice itself in Para 1 it is mentioned that the appellants were eligible for concessional rate of duty, as the aggregate value of their clearance was well within the limit of Rs. 3 crores in the financial year 2002-03. However, the same has not been taken into account by the first appellate authority. 6. In this background, the matter is required to be examined afresh by the Commissioner (Appeals), who should give findings on the documentary evidence adduced by appellants in their support and to pass a fresh order on the issue of shortages and on the issue of eligibility of small scale exemption in accordance with law. 7. In the result, appeals are dispo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
