9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proved by production of sufficient evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants have been indulging into excess clearances without payment of duty. The appellants have satisfactorily explained the difference between the figures as reflected in annual financial account and those entered in RG-1 for each and every item. As such we hold that confirmation of demand of duty against the appellants is not justified - there was any suppression on the part of the appellants so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. In view of the foregoing the appellant succeeds on merits as also on the point of limitation - Following decision of assessee's own previous case [2000 (7) TMI 726 - CEGAT, KOLKATA] - Decided in favour of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant (SAIL) Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar : 2001 (137) ELT 566 (Tri.-Kolkata) and Steel Authority of India Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar : 2001 (47) RLT 343 (CEGAT-Kol.), for the same period involving same issue, had decided the case in their favour. The ld. Advocate submits that the facts involved in the present case as well as in the aforesaid two decisions, are identical. He submits that accepting the explanation furnished by the Appellant, relating to difference in the figures mentioned in their Annual Financial Accounts (Annual Statistics) and the figures of production shown in their monthly RT-12 Returns, the Tribunal has held that there could not be a case of clandestine removal in such circumstances. He plead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stified. We also find favour with the appellants submissions that the demand is barred by limitation inasmuch as the show cause notice was issued on 5-12-1990 whereas the annual financial accounts are put to circulation within a period of two months from the close of the financial year. In these circumstances it cannot be said that there was any suppression on the part of the appellants so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. In view of the foregoing the appellant succeeds on merits as also on the point of limitation. Appeal is thus allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the facts involved in the present case are identical to one decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
