9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 12,85,084/- - it is evident from the reconciliation that the appellant have shown correctly the clearance value in their returns, as is evident from Annexure-B to the SCN, at ₹ 4,55,87,015/-. Whereas the clearance value as per the reconciliation is coming at ₹ 4,53,65,172/-. Thus, the appellant have shown correct value of clearance in their excise returns, which does not call for an adverse inference. There is no error and/or mistake has been pointed out in the calculation submitted by the appellant as per the invoice(s). Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/70721/2017-EX[SM] - Final Order No. 70345/2018 - Dated:- 20-12-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) Shri Vinod Kum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nished goods as compared to the invoice(s). That on account of this there is difference of ₹ 80,31,776/- in turnover for the period 1999-2000 to 2001-2002. It appeared that the appellant cleared finished goods without issuing invoice and without payment of Central Excise duty and thus the difference of duty short paid or not paid is ₹ 12,85,084/-. Further allegation was that the appellant have short paid duty amounting to ₹ 27,821/- during the period 2000-2001 and ₹ 34,829/- during the period 2001-2002, thus, totaling ₹ 62,650/- 3. In the earlier round this Tribunal vide the Final Order dated 19 March, 2013 gave the following observations and directions, remanding the matter:- We have examined para 9 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imited aspect to the learned Adjudicating Authority to grant opportunity to the appellant to reconcile the figures between the profit and loss account and excise invoices. 5. In the remand proceedings the appellant filed written submissions as under:- The gross sale disclosed is Profit Loss Account is inclusive of excise duty charged from the customers. This would be evident by the fact that where as gross sales (including excise duty) have been shown in credit side of Profit Loss Account, excise duty paid/payable have been shown in debit side of Profit Loss Account. As per our Profit Loss Account, following amounts have been debited in Profit Loss Account during 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 :- Year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gross sales as per Profit Loss Account/(as per Annexure-B to show cause notice). (a) 1999-2000 (b) 2000-2001 (c) 2001-2002 1,52,88,664/- 1,93,65,982/- 1,89,64,145/- (ii) 5,36,18,791/- (-) 53,67,107/- (iii) Less-trading sale (a) 1999-2000 (b) 2000-2001 28,85,892/- 620/- (iv) Balance (-) 28,86,512/- 4,53,65,172/- (v) Clearance value as per invoices (Annexure-B to show cause notice). 4,55,87, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s tax return, sales tax registration and disclosure in income tax return filed by the party. But the party has not produced any of these records. I am of the firm opinion the party has nothing in his favour and is making lame excuses. The direction of the CESTAT is very specific on this issue and the Noticee completely failed to comply with the specific direction of the Hon ble CESTAT. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the party has suppressed the clearance value of ₹ 80,31,776/-. According duty amounting to ₹ 12,85,064/- is recoverable from them under the proviso to Section 11-A of C.Ex. Act, 1944 alongwith interest due thereon under Section 11-AB ibid. The party is also liable for penal action under Section 11-AC of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same and have confirmed the duty of ₹ 12,85,064/-. Regarding second issue also, the leaned Commissioner have taken note in Para 6 of the O-I-O, that the appellant have requested to provide copies of the invoice for the period in dispute which were resumed in the course of inspection from the appellants during the July, 2002. Thus, the observation of the learned Commissioner- charts submitted showing duty paid and/or payable on the basis of invoices is not complete. The appellant is not anywhere responsible to complete of the same, as it is failure on the part of Revenue to provide them the copies of the concerned invoices in question which are relied upon documents (copies not provided to appellant in spite of repeated requests). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
