9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation given by the appellant has not been found to be untrue by the Court below. Accordingly, the SCN is misconceived and further the Court below has erred in not considering the normal loss, that the same requires no treatment in the books of accounts. Further, there is no single instance of clandestine removal on the part of the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 1416 of 2007 - FINAL ORDER NO.50185 of 2020 - Dated:- 17-1-2020 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) APPEARANCE: None for the appellant. Shri Y. Singh, Authorised Representative for the respondent. ANIL CHOUDHARY: Heard the parties. 2. The issue in this appeal is whether the loss, in the facts and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised from mines, multiplied by the average quantity per skip. Further, the physical verification is done at the year ending by a team comprising of four persons from various Departments of the assessee, with the help of the surveyor of ore concentrate stock pile, to assess the actual quantity and grade of ore/concentrate. The actual availability of ore and concentrate (both KCC ore and slag) is being registered in metal balance statement. 4. Further, variation in ore stock and metal in ore also depends on sampling and assaying of ore and concentrate. There are always sampling and assaying errors, and it is acceptable world-wide. The allowable variation in sampling and assaying, the normal ranges from 5 to 10% and if it is manual, the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,488 43079 16261806 2601889 - (b) Smelter Plant - 54.411 82042 4463987 714238 - 2 Metal anode 1.290 1.284 114601 117148 23544 - 3 Sulphuric Acid 1.075 - 6147 6608 1057 - Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent), calculation error (as admittedly ore is estimated as regards the quantum of production and quantum received in the concentrate plant). 14. The cogent explanation given by the appellant has not been found to be untrue by the Court below. Accordingly, I find that the show cause notice is misconceived and further the Court below has erred in not considering the normal loss, that the same requires no treatment in the books of accounts. Further, there is no single instance of clandestine removal on the part of the appellant. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant is entitled to consequential benefits, in accordance with law. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court). - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
