2006 (6) TMI 332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....et and RG1 Register figures will not be a ground to hold that there has been clandestine manufacture and removal of goods without payment of duty. The findings recorded in Para 5 are reproduced hereinbelow. 5. I have gone through the case records and the submissions made by the appellants. I observe that: The entire case is based on the differences in the stock of the impugned goods as reflected in the Balance Sheets vis-a-vis RG 1 registers.  The allegation in the show cause notices was that the appellants have "suppressed the production of the above mentioned goods with an intention to clear the same without payment of Central Excise Duty". It has neither been alleged in the Show Cause Notices that the appellants have resort....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... explain that the figure as reflected in their Balance Sheet is the total turnover of the company and does not represent the manufacturing quantity. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur v. Balaji Steel Corporation Ltd. reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 1189 (Tri. -Bang.) = 2002 (53) RLT 196 (CEGAT-Ban.), has held that higher sale figures shown in the Balance Sheet vis-a-vis RG-1 figures explained as inclusive of sales of traded goods, cannot be made the evidence of allegation for clandestine removal in the absence of any other independent evidence. To the same effect is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar reported in 2001 (47) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submits that once there is a discrepancy in the Balance Sheet and the RG 1 Register, this leads to the reasonable conclusion that there has been clandestine manufacture and removal of goods without payment of duty. He submits that the burden rests with the assessee to prove that they have not manufactured and cleared the goods. 3. The learned Consultant submits that mere fact of discrepancy in the Balance Sheet and the RG 1 figures will not be a ground to come to a conclusion that there has been manufacture of final goods to a large extent and clearance of the goods without payment of duty. He submits that it is a well laid down law that the Revenue has to show that there has been purchase of inputs and the utilization of the same ....