9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1260 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of differential duty - Clandestine clearance of goods - Held that - Allegation of clandestine removal rests on the discrepancy in the figures of OB & CB of Stock mentioned in the monthly ER-1 Returns relating to manufacture and production of only three items, namely, (i) Duraphos Rustokik etc. (ii) Phoschem Phosbond etc. & (iii) Phoschem Phosbond etc.. There is no difference between the OB and CB in DSA for June & July, 2010 and also for August & September, 2010. It is their claim that due to inadvertence, while filing ER-1 Returns, CB & OB have not matched for the said periods. - there is no discrepancy noticed by the Department in the Daily Stock Accounts in recording the OB & CB of Stock in relation to the said items. However, while recording the figures in ER-1 Returns, there could be possibility of writing, error in entering the data relating to OB and CB of the said items due to switching over from manual system of maintenance of records to computerized system. - Besides, except the said errors in recording the CB & OB in the respective ER-1 Returns, the Department has not adduced any other evidence in support of clandestine removal. In the result, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
Mis-match in opening and closing balance figures in ER-I Returns leading to demand for duty on differential quantity alleging clandestine clearance without payment of duty. Analysis: The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 55/Kol-IV/2012 dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Kolkata. The case involved a mis-match between the opening balance (OB) and closing balance (CB) figures shown in the ER-I Returns for the period from June, 2010 to September, 2010. A show-cause notice was issued based on this discrepancy, alleging clandestine clearance of goods without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, which led to the appellant filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order of the adjudicating authority, resulting in the present appeal. The appellant's advocate argued that the mis-match in OB and CB figures was due to a mistake during the transition from manual record-keeping to computerization in May 2010. He contended that while the Daily Stock Account showed correct balances, there was an inadvertent error in the ER-I Returns. The advocate cited previous tribunal judgments to support the argument that a mere clerical mistake in recording OB and CB in ER-I Returns does not amount to clearance of goods without duty payment. The Revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Member found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the lower authority's order without providing reasons. The discrepancy in OB and CB figures was only related to three specific items, and there was no such discrepancy in the Daily Stock Account for certain periods. The Member agreed with the appellant's advocate that the error in ER-I Returns could be attributed to the transition to a computerized system. It was noted that the Department had not presented any additional evidence supporting the allegation of clandestine removal, apart from the errors in recording CB and OB in the ER-1 Returns. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per law. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of meticulous record-keeping and the impact of transitioning to computerized systems on data accuracy. It emphasized that mere clerical errors in reporting figures should not be equated with clandestine activities without substantial evidence to support such claims.
|
