2012 (10) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the manufacture of Ladies Undergarments falling under Chapter No. 62.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On scrutiny of the records maintained by the assessee, the officers of the department noted certain discrepancies. On 26-5-2003, they had declared 99160 pieces of the finished goods as on 1-4-2003 valued at Rs. 57,11,615/-. In addition to the finished goods mentioned above, there were inputs, in-process material and packing material and value of the same works out to Rs. 82,68,545/-, which is same as shown in their Profit and Loss accounts. The appellant had availed deemed transitional credit amounting to Rs. 1,56,815/- under Notification No. 35/2003-C.E., dated 10-4-2003. The appellant had taken Central Excise Registration on 2-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 31-10-2007. Hence, this appeal. 4. The contention of the learned Consultant is that there is no dispute that the case was initiated on account of certain discrepancies noticed during the audit of their records, which is clear from letter dated 18-5-2006. In the audit, it was pointed out that though they have availed deemed CENVAT credit on the stock amounting to Rs. 1,56,815/-, however, they have not shown finished goods. The contention is that in RG-1 register they have declared the stock of 32,334 pieces as on 2-6-2003, whereas the stock of finished goods declared on 26-5-2003 was as on 1-4-2003, which was not excisable and the same was cleared without payment of duty. If they had any mala fide intention, they would have avai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rence between the finished goods declared in RG-1 and the goods declared on 26-5-2003 as on 1-4-2003. But, they could not explain the same before either of the lower authority. The contention of the learned JDR is that what is admitted need not to be proved. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras v. Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd. - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 136 (S.C.). He further submitted that from the record itself it is clearly visible that there is clandestine removal and now the onus is on the appellant to prove that they have not removed the goods clandestinely. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. The whole case is built ....