9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the various documents like ER-1 for the period in dispute and produced during the hearing. It is the case of the Revenue in these applications (for restoration of appeal) that the appellants had not produced the correct documents and/or they have produced incorrect documents to the Tribunal, which has resulted in setting aside the impugned orders on the ground of limitation only. 3. The matter was heard by the bench on different dates i.e. 26.11.12, 31.12.12, 10.01.13 & 27.02.13 in order to enable the department to come out with proper evidences supporting their claim in applications for restoration of appeal. 4. Since the issue involved in both the restoration of appeal being same, we take up the submissions made in restoration of appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Range officer, who is proper officer to scrutinize the ER-1 returns, did not contain any details of quantity of P & P medicaments cleared without payment of duty under quantitative discount. The factual report received from the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner under his letter F.No.v/16-19/Misc-Review/2011 dated 30.01.2012 reveals that Hon'ble CESTAT has been misled by the assessee by putting for the wrong/fabricated facts. In fact the ER-1 returns filed by the assessee with the department only had below mentioned columns showing details of the manufacture' clearance and duty payable as elaborated below for convenience and better understanding the facts of the case. Sr.No. CESTAT No. Description of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER-l filed by the assessee to the department and Hon'ble GESTAT were differing. The assessee has inserted one row in ER-1 submitted to Hon'ble CESTAT and shown Quantity Discount, which they had not shown or declared in original ER-1 filed with department. Thus, it appears that M/s Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Unit-III) has fabricated the original records in form bf en-f returns and misled Hon'ble CESTAT to get favour on the count of limitation. In view of above factual position the setting aside of Order-in-Original on the ground of limitation is not correct and Hon'ble CESTAT'S order is required to be re-called and the appeal filed by the assessee is required to be restored. 6. In furtherance of the submissions as made in the applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant had specifically followed the said procedure and during the relevant period had filed the weekly returns as well as the monthly returns with the authorities, on line. 8. During the course of hearing, we directed the departmental representative to get a confirmation as regards the procedure followed by the DG systems and download a specific instances mentioned by the appellant and seek clarification from the department. Said clarification is filed by the office of the departmental representative and submits that from the clarification it is very clear that the appellant had manipulated the returns which were produced before the bench. 9. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. In response to such a direction, the appellant herein filed various ER-1 returns from the period June 2005 to September 2005 online, in addition to the monthly ER-1 returns filed by them with the range office. 13. We take up a random case in the E/ROA/902/12 for the month of September 2005. In the September 2005 returns filed by the assessee before the authorities, in the 1st page, there is a quantitative discount shown as 61,645 in respect of P or P medicaments. It is the Revenue's case that this particular discount was not shown in the monthly returns submitted by the assessee to the Revenue. In support of which ER-1 returns attached with all ROA was brought to our notice. On perusal of the said ER-1 returns as filed by the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty has been paid and cleared by them during the relevant period, and intimated the department. The downloaded pages from CBEC site, also indicate that the quantitative discounts were feeded in by the appellant during relevant period which we have taken as on random sample. 17. We find that the applications which are made by the department are misconstrued and are baseless as from random sample which has been taken up by us for verification, it is demonstrated that there was mentioning of the quantitative discounts. It is also seen from returns filed by assessee to the department, it is not having the same quality of papers as is seen in the returns produced by the assessee. This leads to an adverse inference as to there being something ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
