9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Venkatachalam, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order-in-Appeal No. 129/2017 dated 11.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai. 1.2 A Show Cause Notice dated 13.05.2015 was issued alleging inter alia that on verification of ER-4 submitted with the Range ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Shri. L. Nandakumar, Ld. AC (AR) appearing 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t have removed the Rolling Scrap as such; the whole allegation is based only on ER-4 return, etc. 4. Per contra, Ld. AR supported the findings of the lower authorities and vehemently argued that the appellant had not maintained proper documents/records relating to receipt/usage/disposal of inputs at their factory premises and that the computer printouts furnished in support before the lower autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 finan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
