9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue has filed this appeal contending that the Commissioner (Appeals) was in error in allowing the appeal filed before him. The respondent has filed a cross-objection supporting the decision of the Commissioner. 2. The finding under challenge may be read :- 5. I have carefully considered the facts on record, submissions made by the Appellant through appeal memo as well as during the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admission is important who stated in his statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that the mistake was continued from 1991-92 when he took over the charge of the unit and this happened to get the benefit of enhanced credit limit from the Bank. In this connection the Tribunal in the case of Azad Engineering Works reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 321 (T), held that Allegatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also get strength from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kanam Foam Industries v. Collector- 1993 (68) E.L.T. 368 (T), wherein it was held that Balance Sheet alone is not adequate proof for quantum of goods cleared. Further, in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Guntur v. Balaji Steel Corporation Ltd. reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 1189 (T), the appeal of the department was dismissed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. 6. The appeal is thus allowed. 3. The issue for consideration is whether the Commissioner should have confirmed a short-levy of duty demand based solely on the higher quantity of raw materials mentioned in the Balance Sheet. The Commissioner accepted the explanation of the assessee that the error was in mentioning the quantity of raw material in the Balance Sheet and not in the quantity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
