9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f liability of excise duty for the period of assessment under the Central Excise Act read with the Rules and whether duty of Rs. 12,85,084/- is short paid. (ii) The second issue is whether the appellant have short paid Excise Duty of Rs. 62,652/- during the period from 2000-01 and 2001-02. 2. The appellant is engaged in trading and also manufacturing D.G. sets. They are registered with the Central Excise Department. For manufacturing of D.G. sets appellant purchased engine, alternator, coupling etc., and assemble the same to make D.G. sets. The period in dispute is 1999-2000 to 2001-2002. There was an inspection/survey in the factory premises of the appellant on 30 July, 2002, no discrepancy in the stocks was found. The Central Excise Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon'ble Tribunal made the following observations and directions:- "..l.allegation of revenue is that Profit and loss accounts for the period 2000-01 and 2001-02 show payment of duty of Rs. 20,30,980/- and Rs. 20,64,731/- respectively while excise invoices for those two years discloses figure of Rs. 20,58,801/- and Rs. 20,99,560/- respectively. The difference in figures of these years resulted in duty demand of Rs. 62,650/- without reconciliation. Learned Counsel says that if the figures appearing in pages 56 to 59 of the appeal folder are reconciled such demand shall not sustain. Revenue does not agree with such contention submitting that no reconciliation was before the authority below. We find that submission of Revenue has substance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder:- Year Amount of trading Sale (Rs.) 1999-2000 28,85,892/- 2000-2001 620/- 2001-2002 NIL Total 28,86,512/- Copy of Chartered Accountant Certificate is concerned is enclosed as Annexure-2 In view of the above, we give below reconciliation between the sale disclosed in Profit & Loss Account vis-`-vis assessable value disclosed in periodical returns. S.No Particulars Amount (Rs.) Amount(Rs.) (i) 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) Balan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ured during those years. The genuineness of the trading activity is to be verified from the sales 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 Rs. 80,31,776/-. According duty amounting to Rs. 12,85,064/- is recoverable from them under the proviso to Section 11-A of C.Ex. Act, 1944 alongwith interest due thereon under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Commissioner have arbitrarily rejected the same and have confirmed the duty of Rs. 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 appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
