9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Register, chart reflecting purchase and usage of raw material/removal of raw material as such, etc., along with its replies to Show Cause Notice. The Revenue has not taken any supporting evidence to nail the assessee on the alleged difference in stock in ER-4 return which only points out that no further investigation was done in the interests of justice. It is the settled position of law that the allegations/assumptions howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof - The Revenue has only harped upon the difference in closing stock of raw material, but nothing prevented the Revenue from examining the balance-sheet for the year filed with the Income Tax Department vis-à-vis the appellant’s ledger account filed therewith or the revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearing for the Revenue, perused the documents placed on record and have also gone through the decisions referred to during the course of hearing. 3.1 It is the case of the assessee with regard to the alleged difference in closing stock as on 31st March, 2010 that 1356.151 MT was shown as against 352.901 MT since the consumption quantity was wrongly shown at 11336.901 MT as against 12340.151 MT which resulted in a difference of 1003.25 MT which boosted the closing balance to 1356.151 MT. Further, the appellant had filed a revised/corrected ER-4 on 15.05.2014 before the Range Officer and the same was also duly reflected in the appellant s statutory records like Form-IV - Raw material register, RG-1 and monthly ER-1 returns. 3.2 Ld. Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Show Cause Notice. The Revenue has not taken any supporting evidence to nail the assessee on the alleged difference in stock in ER-4 return which only points out that no further investigation was done in the interests of justice. Thus it may even be correct on behalf of the appellant to plead that the appellant did not benefit in any way in showing the difference in closing stock in ER-4 return as alleged, especially when no such difference was pointed out in the monthly ER-1 returns filed for the entire financial year. 6. It is the settled position of law that the allegations/assumptions howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof. The Revenue has only harped upon the difference in closing stock of raw material, but nothing prev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
