9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Apex Court and this Tribunal took a view that the production cannot be worked out on the basis of formula and in the absence of tangible evidence showing clandestine removal, duty demand cannot be confirmed. Following the ratio of these decisions, which are applicable to the facts of the present case, the appellant has made out a strong case for grant of stay. Accordingly, we grant unconditional waiver from pre-deposit of dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted. - E/85791 & 85792/14 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2014 - P R Chandrasekharan And Anil Choudhary, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. M H Patil, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. D D Joshi, Supdt. (AR) PER : P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut to process loss of about 15%. Similarly, in terms of a contract entered into by the appellant with M/s. DIC India Ltd. for whom the appellant is manufacturing phenolic resin from gum rosin, the permitted loss is 15%. Therefore, process loss cannot be avoided in the manufacturing process. It is also contended that the department had verified the manufacturing activity undertaken by the appellant. On such verification, the jurisdictional range Superintendent had confirmed that the process loss as per records maintained by the appellant appears to be reasonable and correct. The appellant had also obtained expert's opinion from Dr. V.D. Sawant, Chartered Engineer, Ex. Head Analytical laboratory U.I.C.T (formerly UDCT), Mumbai, and he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uperintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the appellant authority. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5. This is second round of litigation and when the matter had come up earlier, we had directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of ₹ 8 lakhs as against the demand of ₹ 42,86,130/-. Similarly, a pre-deposit of ₹ 1,97,526/- was ordered by the lower appellate authority against the demand of ₹ 9,87,632/-. Thus a sum of ₹ 9,97,526/- already stands pre-deposited as against the total demand of ₹ 52,83,762/-. From the records, it is seen that the appellant has led a number of evidences by way of SION, expert's opinion etc. to show tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
