TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether allegation of clandestine removal can be sustained in case the Balance Sheet shows a higher figure of clearance of excisable goods in comparison to figure shown in the Excise Records? ii) Whether extended period for payment of duty can be invoked in view of the fact that party has never brought to the notice of the department about the discrepancy in the balance sheet? 2. The respondent assessee is engaged in manufacture of medicines falling under Chapter heading 3003.10 and 3003.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On scrutiny of excise records for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2001-02, it was noticed that figure of produc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ared for the balance sheet, showing that there were indeed, calculation errors. It is also not disclosed in their reply that in the absence in the manner explained by them. It is also not disclosed as to which documents they had referred continued to happen repeatedly in the same fashion in the next year too and it remained unnoticed till it was pointed out by the audit team. They have also not produced any kind of clarification from the Chartered Accountants. Who prepared the balance sheets or any other authentic documents to support their view. Their plea is also unacceptable from the point of view of consumption of raw materials as shown in the balance sheets. It is observed that during the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 the raw material w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Karnataka) cited by the party are also related to the assessment under Wealth Tax Act where the Court has held that in cases where the value as shown in balance sheet does not represent the real or market value, the same needs to be adjusted. Even I am also of the view that if there are genuine mistakes in preparing the balance sheet, the same should be overlooked. But it is not so in the instant case. In the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. CCE Chandigarh 2004 (170) ELT 72 (T), the excess production was shown in the balance sheet. The explanation that the same was due to wrong reading of unclear figures in the fax regarding production sent from factory to head officer was accepted. Nothing of this sort has happened in this case. Similarl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 strips of varying quantity, some strips 2-10 while other contained 12-20 or even 30 tablets. Similarly, the liquid bottles had different capacities, such as, 60 ml., 100 ml. or even 200 ml. The mistake occurred while converting or computing the total production by the officers/officials who prepared the balance sheets in the Head Office. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to prove the clandestine clearance of the goods by the appellants without payment of duty in the market during these years in dispute. None from the market has come forward to accept the pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn is huge. Explanation of the assessee that there was mistake in calculation which led to the said huge difference was rejected by the original authority on the ground that the assessee failed to produce any work sheet to corroborate the explanation and it was also not explained as to how such mistake happened repeatedly and for a long period of time and how the production did not increase corresponding cost of raw material. These findings have not been dealt with by the Tribunal. The Tribunal merely observed that none from the market came forward to accept the purchases of goods and no unaccounted goods were detected. Even though the Tribunal is a final authority on facts, while exercising its power as highest statutory departmental appel....