TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o clerical mistake in the Annexure relating to Kisan Gutka (60 x 1.5 gms.) in the month of October, 2007 and Kisan Gutkha of the same description as well as Patel Gutkha (60 x 1.5 gms.) for November, 2007 quantity in column No. 6 of the Annexure has appeared erroneously. Such error gave rise to the dispute although substantially there was no difference in assessable value. 1.2 Learned Counsel Shri Rupesh Kumar placing Annexures to the returns of aforesaid two months explained that the assessable value declared in the returns for those two months do not vary with the value declared in invoices of those period resulting in clearance. 1.3 Placing Xerox copies of invoices of above two months in respect of Kisan Gutkha (60 x 1.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the month of November, 2007 has difference both in respect of poly pack and quantity cleared. Third allegation in respect of Patel Gutkha (60 x 1.5 gms.) for November, 2007 was that there was difference both in respect of poly packs and weight. 1.5. According to the appellant the alleged discrepancies arose due to closure of factory on 14.11.2007 (as per sealing report of Excise Authority) and Returns for the impugned months were prepared by a clerk through computer without proper computer knowledge. There was mechanical and clerical error. Number of Poly packs as appearing in the invoices the Annexures to the return and assessable value declared remained undisputed. Therefore, clerical mistake deserves consideration without a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant. Appellate authority also upheld the adjudication although clerical error was apparent from the face of the Annexure to the returns. While there is no incriminating material against appellant clerical error should not cause prejudice to appellant since the error in column 1 of Annexure to the return of November, 2007 is testimony of computer error. 1.9 Further contention of the appellant was that there is no evidence of clandestine removal of the finished goods nor there is any material on record to show contumacious conduct of the appellant. 2. Learned Jt. CDR on other hand submits that adjudicating authority has examined entire pleading of the appellant. Appellant failed to explain how clerical mistake occurred. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....differences according to trade practice as claimed by Appellant and apparent from show cause notice. When the authorities failed to ask the buyers of the product as to the manner how the goods are being sold, traded and weight of pouches in the consignments of October and November, 2007, that remained in doubt. 4.3 Adjudicating authority made mention about a letter dated 25.9.2007 issued by the Asst. Commissioner, Division-iv, Ghaziabad describing norms of standard packing. But Appellate order did not look to that letter. A copy of such letter not being available in record it has also become impracticable to come to know the proposition in that letter. 4.4 Although extensive exercise in the case was made as may be apprecia....