9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed bars and rods; that the pipes and tubes come into existence the movement they are formed and excluded; that such pipes and tubes are entered in RG-1 register by the Appellants; that as pipes and tubes in this condition are not marketable, they are further processed by undertaking drawing, plegiring, annealing, pickling and other processes; that as a result of these processes there is always a loss in the quantity of pipes and tubes to the extent of 2.5% to 3%; that consequently there would always be a difference between weight of pipes and tubes entered in RG-1 register and the weight of pipes/tubes after the processes undertaken; that the reconciliation of the difference in weight is normally made at yearly basis and the loss is reflect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is taken. The learned Advocate also mentioned that for the subsequent period the Additional Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 10/Addl Commr./2001 dated 23-2-2001 has not confirmed the demand holding that there is no evidence to show that the goods had been actually removed from the factory without payment of duty. He also mentioned that the Additional Commissioner while observing that the practice of making debit entries may not be strictly in accordance with the provisions of Central Excise Rules, the fact remains that the Appellants had made the practice known to the Department and the burden was on the Jurisdictional Officer to inform them about any irregularity. The learned Advocate finally submitted that the allegation made in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not adduced any evidence or material on record to show that the quantity of tubes and pipes manufactured by them was entered into RG-1 register before undertaking various processes mentioned by them. There is no material brought on record in the form of removal of goods from the store room, processing register, etc. in support of their contention that the loss of quantity has occurred on account of various process said to have been undertaken by them after entering the tubes and pipes in RG-1 register. Further, Note 4 below the proforma of RG-1 register clearly mentions that duty free removal for re-processing of goods accounted for RG-1 should be shown in columns 11 12. It is not the case of the Appellants that while taking the goods acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
