9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere filing ER-1 returns also from time to time. In the month of May 2009 in the ER-1 return, the appellant had showed closing balance of 227 MT. However in the month of June, the opening balance was taken as zero. After noting this enquiry was initiated and at that stage it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that when the ship was salvaged the actual quantity of scrap was not less than 500 tonnes estimated by them at the time of filing ship for salvage. According to the appellants, the actual quantity of salvage was only 273 MT and the balance 227 MT was not really available at all. In addition during the verification process, it was also found that the appellants had not paid full education cess and they had not reversed the credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy deposited an amount of Rs. 2,39,896/- which may be treated as sufficient for the purpose of pre-deposit and stay may be granted. 3. The learned AR submits that the appellant had filed ER-1 returns regularly and according to the appellant only the stock in May 2009 was 227.86 MT and without any valid reasons and without any explanation, the opening balance in June was taken as zero. If the salvaged quantity was less and when appellants were clearing the scrap from time to time it is difficult to understand how appellants came with the closing balance of 227.86 MT instead of showing it as zero in May. He submits that appellants were aware that the ship was submerged in the sea for 3 years and they will be aware of the consequences of ship ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rima facie case in their favour. It is difficult to imagine how an assessee would not notice that quantity of 227.86 MT was not at all available to show it in the ER-1 return when no stock was available. One would expect that appellant would have informed the department as to how the closing balance or opening balance shown in the ER-1 returns were wrongly shown and why they were shown in that manner. The mistake becomes multiplied when we notice the fact that appellant had informed the Pollution Control Authorities and Port Authorities about the salvage activities but failed to inform the Customs Authorities or Central Excise Authorities to whom the returns were filed. Therefore the departmental officers cannot be found fault with for goin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
