9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at said difference in number of poles stand cleared by them clandestinely – Appeal allowed – Decided in favor of Assessee. - Appeal No. 3585 of 2010-EX[SM] - Final Order No. A/56816/2013-SM(BR) - Dated:- 1-7-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. For the Appellant: Ms. Rashi, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri P.K. Sharma, AR JUDGEMENT Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PCC Poles. During the course of audit, it was seen that there was difference of 283 pieces of PCC poles in the invoice issued by the appellant and the number of poles cleared as per stock register. The Revenue entertained a view that such difference of 283 pieces of PCC Poles stand cleared by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oles cleared from the premises of the unit. (c) Oct.-Dec.07: The assessable value shown in the Return is Rs.1,01,23,489/which is nearly same as the assessable value of Rs. 1,01,23,332/as per excise invoices. The quantity cleared as per the dispatch details is 9134 which is inadvertently mentioned as 8956 in the Return. The stock register tallies with the dispatch details and duty has been paid on the entire quantity of poles cleared from the premises of the unit. 3. The above explanation does not stand accepted by the Assistant Commissioner who observed that the appellant could not reconcile the difference of 283 poles at the time of audit and even during adjudication they are not having any evidence in support of their contention. As s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the number of poles shown on the invoices. The appellants during the original adjudication proceedings have explained the difference, which does not stand accepted by the authorities. 6. Admittedly there is difference between the stock register and the invoices. If the appellants was having any malafide intention to clear the goods without payment of duty they would not have first entered the goods in the stock register and then would not have shown the clearance of the same. Admittedly it seems to be a case of wrong reflecting of the goods and clerical mistake. Even otherwise the said difference stands explained by the appellant, Revenue has not been able to adduce any other evidence on record to indicate that said difference in number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
