2017 (5) TMI 1448

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ger in the computer can form basis for examination, the claims made by the appellant to discard certain entries, if they are cogently explained should also be considered - matter remanded back to the Original Authority for re-examination of the matter restricting only to the claim of the appellant with reference to the possibility of duplication of computerized data entries maintained, as sales ledger - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Mr. B. Ravichandran, Technical Member Present Ms. Shreya Daliya, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri S.K. Poddar, AR for the respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran 1. The appeal is against order dated 26/09/2006 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. The appellants are engaged in the manufa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... entries in the records maintained by the appellant in their computer. Admittedly, the appellants' maintained sales ledger in the computer and that was taken as an evidence to calculate their duty liability in the proceedings before the lower Authorities. The admissibility of the computerized date maintained by the appellant is not in question. The appellant also admitted that such ledger can be considered for calculation of duty liability. Their only plea is that wherever it is evident that there is apparent duplication of the entries for the same date, for the same consignee with even the vehicle number being the same, such entries should not be counted for totaling the clearances. I have perused a chart of such instances, submitted by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... conclusion that there could be summary finding of quantification of duty on all entries available in the private records. 6. It is also noticed that the appellants have submitted illustrative documents to show that the capacity of the vehicle which had multiple entries on the particular date itself, was only 16.2 metric tons, whereas the clearance shown in serial no.1478 of the print out is for 18 metric tons. This is mentioned only to show that the claim of the appellant is that the said entry 1478 is a total of 1472 and 1473, made on the same day for the same consignee with the same vehicle number. 7. On preliminary observation of the submissions made by the appellant and the findings recorded in the original order, it is found fair and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X