9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sales of fireworks for the months of August, September and October 1996. The quantities of sales shown in these registers were compared with the quantities of goods mentioned in the invoices covering the said period. In respect of most of the items of fireworks, the quantities mentioned in the private records were found to be higher than those mentioned in the invoices. In respect of other items of fireworks, either no quantity was mentioned in the private records or a lesser quantity was mentioned therein when compared to the quantity mentioned in the invoices. A statement was obtained from one Shri ASN Sridhar, Power-of-Attorney holder for the proprietor of the unit. Oh the basis of the results of enquiries, the Department issued sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been cleared by the assessee during the period of dispute and that they were liable to pay duty at the rate of 8% on a value of Rs. 15,04,498/-(excess over the exempted value of Rs. 30 lakhs). Accordingly, the differential duty of Rs. 1,20,360/- was worked out. After noting that the penal provision (Section 11AC) was not in force prior to 28-9-1996, the original authority imposed on the assessee penalty equal to the amount of duty payable for the period from 28-9-96 only. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) noted that, while; in respect of many varieties of fireworks, the private records showed higher quantities than the invoices, they showed smaller quantities or nil quantity vis-a-vis invoices in respect of other varieties. Where the private rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anager of the factory, who had maintained the private records was not queried for any oral evidence and therefore it should be held that the said records are of no evidentiary value. We have found that a statement was recorded from Shri Sridhar, Power-of-Attorney holder for the assessee, wherein he acknowledged the veracity of the above records and conceded duty liability. This statement was never retracted. However, the entries contained in the private records should have been assessed in a consistent manner for evidentiary purpose. The original authority accepted those entries which were higher than the invoiced entries, but he ignored other entries in the private records. This is not acceptable in law. If any excess quantity mentioned in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
