9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2010 - K.L. Manjunath and H.S. Kempanna, JJ. Shri Y. Hariprasad, Advocate, for the Appellant. S/Shri G. Shivadas, G. Venkatesh, R. Harish, Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : K.L. Manjunath, J.]. - Revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by CESTAT in Final Order Nos. 1525 1526/2006, dated 19-9-2006 [2007 (207) E.L.T. 562 (Tri. - Bang.)] raising the following substantial questions of law : (1) Whether the CESTAT order is legal and correct in setting aside the impugned order No. 10/2004 dated 27-8-2004 on the ground that the discrepancy was only in SAP accounting and not in manual accounting? (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finished goods when it was compared to the actual stock. Respondent-assessee filed a detailed reply stating that difference in the stock either as excess or shortage was on account of SAP system of accounting and there is possibility of error being accrued in system of accounting and it further contended that the duty has been paid in respect of cleared goods, therefore assessee requested the authorities to drop the proceedings. 4. Reply sent by the assessee was not accepted by the original authority. Thereafter, an order was passed calling upon the assessee to pay duty and penalty. Being aggrieved by the order, assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal. Revenue also filed a separate appeal in regard to the relief granted by the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to maintain accounts in terms of the Central Excise Act and Rules. Therefore he requests the court to answer questions of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 6. Per contra, counsel for the assessee contends that the assessee has given a detailed explanation for the discrepancy appeared in the accounting system and the commissioner has rightly noticed that in electronic method of accounting there may be an error either on plus side or on minus side and such error cannot exceed 2% and in the instant case actual difference of the goods manufactured found at the time of inspection based on the documents was not exceeding 2%, therefore he contends that the tribunal was justified in granting the relief and he further contends ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
