9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Firstly, there is no direct evidence of clandestine removal such as transportation, recipient of goods, receipt of consideration etc. However, the difference between the balance sheet and ER-1 returns need to be explained as per the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority. On going through various documents such as balance sheet, ledger, chartered accountant certificate, we find that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER RAMESH NAIR The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of various steel articles falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff. During the course of audit conducted from 22.03.2010 to 23.03.2010 of the records of the appellant's unit for the period from January 2007 to February 2010, the audit officers from the balance sheet of the company for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no evidence of clandestine removal. Secondly, the difference alleged by the department has been explained by showing various documents such as balance sheet, ledger, and chartered accountant certificate. The difference is mainly because of the advance/forward sale shown in the balance sheet which was not actual removal of goods; therefore, no demand can be confirmed. He submits that despite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chartered accountant certificate, we find that the appellant have claimed that there is no clandestine removal, hence, there is force in the said submission of the appellant. However, it is observed that the Adjudicating Authority has not properly verified such documents whereby the appellant have explained the difference between the sales figure shown in balance sheet and ER-1 Therefore, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
