9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck in process was not actually verified and the quantity declared by the proprietor of the Respondent company as stock in process was accepted by the officers of the Department, the duty liability cannot be fastened against the Respondent in absence of any plausible evidence that the goods have been removed from the factory. I also find from the grounds of appeal, that the findings of the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 080/2015 - Dated:- 3-6-2015 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Mr. G R Singh, DR For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Chibber, Advocate ORDER Per S. K. Mohanty: The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut-II. The facts of the case are that during the course of verification of stocks o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng aside the duty demand is that no credible evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to prove that the goods have been clandestinely removed from the factory. Further, it has also been held in the impugned order that the method of stock taking adopted by the Central Excise Officers is not proper and justified. Against the impugned order, the Revenue has filed appeal before this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed a reasoned and speaking order holding that the method of verification of stock by the Central Excise Officers was not proper and since the stock in process was not actually verified and the quantity declared by the proprietor of the Respondent company as stock in process was accepted by the officers of the Department, the duty liability cannot be fastened against the Respondent in absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such goods. 5. Therefore, in absence of any specific allegation, with adequate evidence regarding clandestine removal of the goods from the factory, duty liability on account of mere non-maintenance of proper records cannot be the defensible ground for confirmation of the duty demand. Non-maintenance of proper records may expose the assessee to the penal consequences, which in the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
