9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri P.K.Choudhary, Member(Judicial) Shri S.Mukherjee, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue Shri B.C.Sarkar, Consultant for the Respondent ORDER Per: Shri P. K. Choudhary The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Ballast and Transformer classifiable under Chapter 85 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A Show Cause Notice dated 09.04.2008 was issued alleging that the respondent contravened the various provisions of the Central Excise Rules by removing clandestinely 56882 Ballast and Transformers without payment of duty of ₹ 25,84,690/-. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and also imposed penalty of equal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kanpur [2005 (184) ELT 165 (Tri.-Del.)], which is reproduced below:- 5. The Department has no doubt placed much reliance on the provisions of Section 36-B, to sustain the admissibility of the computer print outs for proving the charge of clandestine receipt of raw material and manufacture of the final products by the appellants, but admissibility of the printed material under the said Section, has been made subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions, detailed therein. The condition in respect of the computer print out laid down in that Section, as is evident from the reading of its clause (ii), is that, the computer print out containing the statement was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the maintenance of accounts of the said stock by using software in the computer itself substantiates the viability of the Stock Summary Account. The ld.A.R. referred to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Madras v. Systems Components Pvt.Ltd. [2004 (165) E.L.T. 136 (S.C.)]. It has been observed that what is admitted need not be proved. I find that the respondent had taken a definite stand that the computer print out had not given a total picture of the manufacture and clearance of the goods, and it was maintained on theoretical basis. Therefore, the respondent had not admitted the maintenance of computer print out as proper account of stock and therefore, the case laws relied upon by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
