Delayed RG-1 entry cannot sustain demand where records show duty-paid clearance and no contrary evidence rebuts the findings.

A demand based solely on delayed RG-1 entry could not be sustained where the records showed the goods were entered after testing or buyer clearance and the private and statutory records were examined together. The factual finding that the goods in the private records matched those in the statutory records remained unrebutted, and no contrary evidence was produced to displace the conclusion that duty-paid clearance had been recorded. On that basis, the demand was held unsustainable and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand could be sustained on the basis of alleged non-entry of goods in the statutory record and delay in making RG-1 entries.

Analysis: The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the goods were entered in the RG-1 record after testing or clearance by buyers and that there was delay in entry from the date of production. The demand was dropped after examining the private and statutory records. No evidence was produced to controvert those findings or to show that the goods in the private records were different from those reflected in the statutory records.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable and the appeal was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: Absence of rebuttal evidence to displace the factual findings on record maintenance and duty payment justified rejection of the Revenue's challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand based only on delayed statutory entry cannot be sustained when the assessee's records show duty-paid clearance and the revenue fails to rebut the factual findings with contrary evidence.

---