9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise (Appeals) dated 17th April, 2002. 3. Ms. Suchitra Kamble appearing for the Revenue, in support of this Appeal, submits that the substantial question of law is required to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. She submits that the Respondent is liable to pay Central Excise duty at advalorem basis on the textile goods, namely, 6,47,801.45 lacs meters, which have been declared "loose" in RG1 register (finished goods register) as on 16th December, 1998 at the time of removal of goods. She submits that if the register was of finished goods, there was no occasion for the Assessee to have entered this stock as "loose". The explanation given to the authorities was therefore in the nature of after thought. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rified. The RG1 register is to be maintained by every manufacturer unless exempted. Once the stock is reflected in the statutory records, which only deals with accounting of finished goods, then, any finding of fact rendered by the Tribunal to the contrary is perverse. She relies upon this finding of fact rendered in the order of the adjudicating authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Goregaon Division, Mumbai at internal pages 3 and 4, running pages 26 and 29 of the paper book. She submits that these findings have been confirmed by the appellate authority, namely, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai5. Therefore, they should not have been disturbed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal's reasoning in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valorem basis on textile goods of 6,47,801.45 lacs meters declared loose fabric in RG1 register. That was stock which was declared as such in this register. However, the entry of 15th December, 1998 was scrutinised and verified by the jurisdictional superintendent. He has initialed and counter signed it. He has also mentioned date as 15th December, 1998. If the Revenue is relying upon the fact that this is a register of finished goods and the stock entered therein must be treated as such, then, we do not find any justification for the Revenue terming such huge stock of cloth as "loose". If it is kept in loose condition and not accounted for as finished goods or manufactured goods, then, the Revenue was obliged to produce material and to con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut this, but, the Tribunal discovered that the record belies these assertions and contentions of the Revenue. The Assessee had declared the outstanding stock of finished goods to the jurisdictional authority on 15th December, 1998. The quantity was declared as 1,19,449.10 lacs meters. This quantity was verified by the officer on the same day. The same figure is rounded and certified as checked in the RG1 register. If the stock of manufactured goods on 15th December, 1998 was determined as 1,19,449.10 lacs meters, then, the claim for duty in respect of additional stock of 6,47,801.45 lacs meters of fabric in loose condition was not held to be proved by the Revenue. The Tribunal assigned additional reasons, namely, the stock subsequently was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
