9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh 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 of finished goods and raw materials by the Central Excise officials in the factory of the respondent, it was detected that some of the goods were found in exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory. 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. 2. In the grounds of appeal, annexed to the appeal memorandum, the Revenue has contested the impugned order on the ground that no stock of Menthol 97% and DMO 20% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tually 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 Commissioner (Appeals) have not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount 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 has been rightly upheld in the impugned order. . 6. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
