TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 21-5-2004 in which Shri Singh has admitted the shortage of raw materials when the Central Excise Officers visited his factory premise. In these detailed statements covering the nature and procedure of manufacture of garments along with data relating to the shortage found, he has come out with his response acknowledging the manner of calculation done on the basis of quantity of raw material used in the finished product and also admitting that the "garments were cleared without issuance of invoice and without accounting for the same in the production register and the credit of raw material was used for payment of duty on goods exported". As regards the mode of payment, it was stated that "the goods were sold on cash basis to traders from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further corroborative evidence, such demand could not have been raised by the department :- (1) Govind Rubber Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I, reported in 2005 (192) E.L.T. 775. ["There is no substantial force in the submissions of the learned Advocate that the standard input-output norms can be applied only in perfect conditions and not otherwise"]. (2) ARS Steel v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad, reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 705 (Tri.-Del.). ["The contention of the applicant is that there is no evidence that applicants had manufactured and cleared the goods clandestinely. The contention is that a statement was recorded from the partner of the applicant fir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n no way disowned the previous statement and its contents. He submits that in the first statement dated 21-5-2004 discussing the wastage Shri Singh stated that the wastage was around 10 to 15% in respect of round neck half sleeve shirts manufactured by them. Even while confirming the demand, the learned Commissioner has made allowances to exclude certain wastes. He also states that the facts of the case clearly indicate that the goods were cleared clandestinely on which duty was never paid and hence the duty raised was as per law. 4. We have heard both sides and examined the documents. The contention that the second statement has retracted, the first statement is, prima facie, not in tune with the wordings used therein. It is clear ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-3% and washing, bleaching and dyeing waste 6%-7%, thus totalling to 8%-10%. Further, there did not appear to be any corresponding entry I 8n 'SION' regarding curring waste and waste generated at over-lock stage but there was mention of a total of 16.66% waste for manufacture of dyed acrylic knitwear from acrylic yarn stage (entry No. J-167) and 20% waste for the manufacture of cotton and polyester mixed knitwear from cotton and polyester texturised yarn (entry No. J-155). Therefore, by taking into account all the facts discussed above, the notice was entitled for 16.66% waste during the course of manufacture of Dyed Acrylic Knitwear from acrylic yarn (out of which 8% waste was of invisible type and remaining 8.66% of visible type). Similar....