2009 (12) TMI 278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 35/2003-CE. (N.T.), dated 10-4-03. Vide Notification No. 40/2003-C.E. (N.T), dated 30-4-2003 appellants were required to give an intimation to the department if there is any change in the declaration already filed by them. Admittedly, the appellants filed declarations on 26-5-2003 and 10-6-2003 declaring the stock as on 31-3-2003. Appellants were required to make a declaration on stock as on 31-3-2003 or before 26-5-2003 which was extended to 15-6-2003. Appellants had filed a declaration on 7-4-2003 but they were required to file another declaration before 30-4-2003. The appellants made two declarations but simply declared the stock as on 31-3-2003. 2. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 10-5-2004 wherein the credit of Rs. 1,3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve verified this aspect. In any case no investigation has been conducted on the invoices submitted by them to show that they were not genuine. Admittedly, at this late stage it is not possible to verify the stock and further it is also to be noted, even though it was not noted by any of the lower authorities that the appellant was only a dealer and not a manufacturer and was treated as a deemed manufacturer in terms of the law as it stood at that time. Learned DR on the other hand submits that the appellants failed to produce any proof to show that the stock was lying as on 31-3-2003 and the invoices produced by them have been found to be rather new by the superintendent and therefore not reliable. He also submits that originally the appell....