9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired to be discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. In the present case, there is no evidence on record except the difference in figures of sale as per ER-I Returns and balance sheet. There is neither any cogent nor any credible evidence on record to prove any surreptitious removal of the finished products. The respondents have satisfactorily explained the difference between the figures as reflected in the Annual Financial Account and those entered in ER-I Returns. The confirmation of duty against the respondent is not justified - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/75179/2016 - FO/76609/2018 - Dated:- 13-9-2018 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri S.S. Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder dispute, the respondent opted to maintain separate accounts both for dutiable and nondutiable goods, but at the time of compilation and preparation of final accounts the inter location transfer as on 01.03.2007 was entered as production and accordingly figures got inflated to the tune of inter location transfer of 245,090.50 kgs in the total production figure for the financial year ended on 31.03.2007. He filed copies of extracts of the audited final accounts for the financial year 2006-2007 which shows that in the Ding Dong variety of biscuit of different packings the entries as claimed by ld. Consultant are variable. 4. The main allegation in the present case is that the production as shown in the books of account do not correspon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that there are no corroborative evidence to suggest that the asessee has manufactured that quantity (which is alleged to have been cleared without payment of duty). To hold the assessee accountable for payment of duty on this account further evidences are essential in nature. For example, the finished products require to be co-related with the consumption of raw materials. In my considered view the charge of clandestine removal and clearance is a serious charge against the manufacturer which is required to be discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. I do not agree with the Revenue s stand taken by them that standard of proof in such cases has to be necessarily on the basis of preponderance of pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
