TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice does not reveal offering of any such explanation by the appellant but as reveals from Order-in-Original given at para 20, production figures given in ER1 return was taken whereas in the removal column, three type of figures are shown including removal of reprocessed quantity and there is a reference in the same paragraph that quantity reprocessed is accounted separately in ER1 return - law requires that clandestine removal is to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 152 of 2011 - A/85811/2019 - Dated:- 2-5-2019 - DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Chandra Nair, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat quantum of LPG reprocessing for quality outcome was not taken into consideration besides the fact that some amount of LPG was captively consumed for extraction of propane used as fuel in order to run boilers and taking those into account net difference would come to a negligible quantity of -0.225 TMT which could be due to evaporation/wastage etc. Placing reliance on the case laws reported in 2001 (130) ELT 228 (T), 2011 (270) ELT 168 (Pat), 2016 (342) ELT A-226 (SC), he submitted that difference in the figures of production shown in ER1 returns and financial report cannot be a ground to alleged suppression of production and clandestine removal, unless evidence is brought on record to prove beyond doubt that actual clandestine removal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have been established for which extended period is invokable and therefore the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) needs no interference by the Tribunal. 5. Heard from both sides at length and perused the case records. Admittedly appellant is a Public Sector Company engaged in the manufacture of LPG and it claims that the difference of production shown in two different statements was due to non-taking of captive use of LPG into account as well as segregating reprocessing of certain quantity of LPG which were not up to the standard maintained for such production. Respondent-department was appraised of those facts but it had not taken the same into consideration. Appellant had filed reconciliation statement duly cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
