9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese years from outside. No unaccounted goods were also detected and seized from the factory of the appellants. In the absence of such an evidence, in our view, the balance sheet could not be taken as a sacrosanct documents for proving the allegations of clandestine production and removal of the goods by the appellants and thereby evasion of duty by them. Apart from this, the extended period of limitation for raising the demand from the years 1998-99 through a show cause notice dated 26-8-2003 could not be invoked. There was no suppression of material facts by the appellants as the balance sheets prepared by them were publically available documents and copies of the same were sent to the Revenue also. The duty demand raised is apparently tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The duty had been confirmed against them for the years 1997-98 to 2001-02 on the ground that production of the medicines, such as, Tablets, Capsules Syrup shown in the balance sheets of all these years was much more than as reflected in the RT-12 returns. Before confirming the demand, they were served with a show cause notice wherein this ground was alleged and suppression of production was attributed to them. The appellants, however, denied the allegations of suppression of production and maintained that genuine mistakes took place in preparing the balance sheets by the officers at the Head Office of the appellants' company and that there was no evasion of duty on their part. The adjudicating authority, however, did not accept their e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order has observed in these words that he was of the view that there was genuine mistake in preparing the balance sheets and the same should be overlooked . He has also observed that the discrepancies in the RT-12 returns vis-a-vis balance sheets regarding the production for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, had been reconciled by the appellants and there existed no discrepancies. He had even dropped the duty demand for these years. For the previous years (1988-99), he has confirmed the duty by not accepting the explanation of the appellants regarding the discrepancies found in the balance sheets and the RT-12 returns. According to the appellants, the discrepancies took place on account of the fact that varieties of tablets were packed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The duty demand raised is apparently time-barred. In this view, we are fortified by the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Hindalco Indus. Ltd., v. CCE, Allahabad, 2003 (161) E.L.T. 346 (T), wherein also the demand was raised on the basis of the information appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee/company after invoking the extended period of limitation. But it was ruled that extended period could not be invoked as the balance sheets were publically available document and the demand was held to be time-barred against the assessee. The case of the appellants also stands squarely covered by this ratio of the law laid down in that case. 6. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
