1999 (9) TMI 314 - AT - Central Excise

Order set aside, appeals allowed due to lack of evidence.

The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed based on the lack of substantial evidence supporting the allegations against the ... Accountal of goods Issues involved: Allegations of short accountal of lime stone, non-accountal of receipt of lime stone, discrepancy in invoices, unrecorded consignments, and suppression of cement production.Short accountal of lime stone: The appellants contested the allegation by providing documentary evidence that they received the raw material as per their records, refuting the Revenue's claim of excess receipt based on an average quantity per truck. Lack of investigation from one of the suppliers further weakened the Revenue's case.Non-accountal of receipt of lime stone: The appellants explained that the Form IV Register for the relevant period was lost due to theft, with an FIR lodged. They produced weighment slips to substantiate actual receipts, but the Revenue relied on weighment slips from the lost period. The appellants argued that all received lime stone was duly recorded.Discrepancy in invoices: The Revenue alleged that invoices were altered to show receipt by the appellants, but the appellants clarified that the lime stone was sold to another party, supported by a bill showing sales tax paid. This discrepancy was resolved in favor of the appellants.Unrecorded consignments: The Revenue claimed unrecorded consignments, which the appellants countered by stating that only two out of the mentioned consignments were received and duly recorded. No evidence supported the Revenue's assertion of unrecorded consignments.Suppression of cement production: The Revenue based its claim on a formula for cement production, which the appellants argued was theoretical and dependent on various factors. The appellants highlighted the lack of investigation into other raw materials essential for cement production, undermining the Revenue's case. The formula's reliability was questioned, and no experimental tests were conducted to validate it.Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed based on the lack of substantial evidence supporting the allegations against the appellants.