TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ountal of goods in RG register would not invite confiscation of the same or imposition of penalty, in the absence of any evidence to show that the goods were meant for clandestine removal. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Ex. Appeal Nos. 50689 - 50690 of 2018-SM - Final Order Nos. 52091 – 52092/2018 - Dated:- 30-5-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member ( Judicial ) Sh. Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate for the appellant Sh. H. C. Saini, AR for the respondent ORDER Per : Archana Wadhwa Both the appeals are taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the authorities below. 2. As per facts on record, the appellant are engaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the sides duly represented by Sh. Rajesh Chhibber, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Sh. H. C. Saini, ld. AR for the respondent, I find that the appellant have assailed the method of stock taking itself. Ld. Advocate submits that such stock taking was done on the basis of the total number of billets and flats multiplied with the weight of one billet flat. He submits that the absence of inventories establishes the fact that the goods were not actually weighed but the weight was arrived at by taking the average weight. In any case, it is the contention of the appellant that the Authorised Signatory having explained the reasons for non entry of some of the goods, being hollow billets reflects upon the appellant s bonafide. Further, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Hon ble Gujarat High Court reported as 2012 (281) ELT A19 (Guj.). 7. Otherwise also, I find that a mere non accountal of goods in RG register would not invite confiscation of the same or imposition of penalty, in the absence of any evidence to show that the goods were meant for clandestine removal. This was the ratio of the Tribunal decision in the case of A. Kumar Industries (supra) and upheld by Hon ble Gujarat High Court. Admittedly, in the present case the Revenue has not referred to any circumstantial evidence to reflect that the goods in question were meant for clandestine removal. 8. In view of the same, I set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants. ( Dictated an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
