9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to production on 18-12-2010 and 19-12-2010 of 36 MT and 66 MT is totally incorrect. In these circumstances, I do agree with the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and thereafter holding that there was no excess production was done by the appellant during that period. Further, the case law relied upon by the learned AR is not relating to the facts of this case as in that case the raw material was found in excess which was not entered in the statutory records. In this case, the allegation against the respondent is that respondent has manufactured the excess goods to clear clandestinely. Therefore the case law relied upon by the learned AR is not applicable to the facts of this case. As discussed above, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the adjudication order was set aside on the ground that verification of the stock was done on estimation basis and Revenue failed to produce any corroborative evidence to allege that excess goods were manufactured by appellant and cleared clandestinely. Aggrieved from the said order, Revenue is before me. 3. Learned AR submits that in this case, the excess stock found in the factory of the appellant has not been explained by the respondents and the said goods were not recorded in the statutory records. Therefore, these goods were unaccounted goods which were said to be cleared clandestinely. He further submits that the weighment of MS ingots were done on the basis of formula taken at that time. Therefore weighment was done correctly. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and thereafter holding that there was no excess production was done by the appellant during that period. Further, the case law relied upon by the learned AR is not relating to the facts of this case as in that case the raw material was found in excess which was not entered in the statutory records. In this case, the allegation against the respondent is that respondent has manufactured the excess goods to clear clandestinely. Therefore the case law relied upon by the learned AR is not applicable to the facts of this case. As discussed above, if the production of two days i.e. 18-12-2010 and 19-12-2010 are taken into consideration as per previous day s production ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
