9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch, were different having different assessable value. Accordingly, the appellant had maintained two set of RG-1 Register for different models of machines manufactured by it. Thus, there is no overlapping of the date or figure in the RG-I Register as claimed by the authorities below. In absence of any substantiation of the fact of clandestine removal of goods by the appellant, the charges levelled against it in support of confirmation the adjudged demand cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/55517/2013[SM] - A/58054/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 14-11-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant: Mr. S.C. Kamra, Advocate, Mr. G.K. Mahajan, Advocate Present for the Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e RG-1 Register, it was detected by the DGCEI Officers that during the period 1997-98 and 1998-99, the total Nos. of 69 machines were manufactured by the appellant, against which only 26 machines were recorded in the RG-1 Register for the relevant period. Accordingly, it was concluded by the Department that the remaining machines not reflected in the RG-1 Register were removed clandestinely without payment of Central Excise duty. The show cause notice issued in this regard was adjudicated vide order dated 18.09.2003, wherein Central Excise duty demand of ₹ 14,82,000/- was confirmed and equal amount of penalty was imposed on the appellant. 3. Feeling aggrieved with the said adjudication order, the appellant has preferred appeal befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The expression Structure has not been used in the Progress Reports . The said adjudication order was appealed against and was disposed of by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 26.10.2012, in upholding the adjudged demand. Hence, the present appeal is before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that there is no mis-match in the figure reflected in the progress report vis-a-vis the RG-1 register maintained by the appellant. In this context, by referring to the re-conciliation statement, the ld. Advocate stated that during the period 1997-98, total 36 machines in semi-finished condition were reflected in the progress report and the said machines after fitted with the required p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machines were reflected as finished machines by the appellant in the RG-1 Register during the relevant period. Thus, there is no mis-match between the figures reflected in the progress report and the quantity shown in the RG-1 Register. Further, with regard to 3 machines reflected in the RG-1 Register for the period from 07.12.1999 to 30.03.2000, I find that there is also no mis-match between the machines and the model sold during the month of December and March, were different having different assessable value. Accordingly, the appellant had maintained two set of RG-1 Register for different models of machines manufactured by it. Thus, there is no overlapping of the date or figure in the RG-I Register as claimed by the authorities below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
