9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production figures had been taken wrongly - Held that: - Since the entire goods cleared from the Santoor unit is received by their own Abu Road unit, no malafide intention is manifest in the discrepancies seen in the returns - since clearances have been made from one unit to the other of the same company, the principle of revenue neutrality will come into play which is a settled position of law. Any duty paid in Santoor unit will be available as credit in the Abu Road unit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/50506/2017 - Final Order No. 57962/2017 - Dated:- 17-11-2017 - Hon ble Justice (Dr) Satish Chandra, President And Hon ble Mr V. Padmanabhan, Member (Terch) For the Appellant : Shri J.P. Kaushik, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Statement dt 29.12.2009 of Shri Vijay Upadhyay, Authorised Signatory and Statement dt 05.04.2010 of Shri Ranjeet Singh, GM (Operation) were recorded regarding the said differences. They stated that the discrepancy had crept in because one return was prepared in the Head Office at Abu Road and the other one in the factory at Santoor by different persons and the figures given in ER-4 return were correct. ER-6 return did not show receipt of 88.720 MT of ABS and the transfer of 10.685 MT resulting in the difference. The officers also noticed that the production figures for the quarter ending March, 2008 shown in ER-1 returns did not match with those shown in the CAS-4 certificate. Further the figures of raw materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant and Sh H.Saini, DR. 6. Shri Kaushik emphasized the following grounds in the appeal: a) ER-4 as well as ER-6 returns were prepared by two separate persons. Certain errors were made in preparation of ER-6 returns which also resulted in mistakes in the Certificate of Valuation issued by the Cost Accountant in form CAS-4. The correct ER-6 returns as well as revised CAS-4 certificates, duly certified by the cost auditor for the period under dispute, has already been submitted to the departmental authorities. But the same has been brushed-aside by the adjudicating authority as an afterthought. Since there is no difference in the figures ER-4, ER-1 and the revised ER-6 and CAS-4 certificates, the demand deserves to be dropped. b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31,961/- which was cleared without payment of duty amounting to ₹ 2,64,39,186/- during the period January to March, 2008. After perusal of record, we find that the allegation of clearance of finished goods without payment of duty has been made only on the basis of discrepancy in figures between ER-1, ER-4 and ER-6 returns. Revenue has not undertaken any investigation to see whether such raw materials have actually been received in the factory, used in the manufactured finished goods and cleared clandestinely. Clandestine clearance is a serious charge and Revenue is required to establish the same on the basis of tangible evidence. Without any other evidence as to the receipt of raw material or clearance to the finished goods, mere d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
