2013 (7) TMI 600

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Advocate For the Respondent: Shri P.K. Sharma, AR JUDGEMENT Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PCC Poles. During the course of audit, it was seen that there was difference of 283 pieces of PCC poles in the invoice issued by the appellant and the number of poles cleared as per stock register. The Revenue entertained a view that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (a) Oct-Dec.05: The difference of 100 is due to inadvertent entry of no. of poles as 1598 in the Return instead of the correct figure of 1698 that is reflected in the Stock Register. It is reiterated that although the no. of poles has been mentioned in the Return as 1598, duty has been paid on the entire quantity of 1698 poles with an assessable value of Rs. 15,09,628.00. (b) July-Sep. 07: ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....poles cleared from the premises of the unit. 3. The above explanation does not stand accepted by the Assistant Commissioner who observed that the appellant could not reconcile the difference of 283 poles at the time of audit and even during adjudication they are not having any evidence in support of their contention. As such, he confirmed the demand of Rs.50,615.00 along with imposition of pena....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct of the figures of stock register being authentic and figures of invoice & returns being incorrect. It shows that the appellant has not paid duty on 283 poles and removed them clandestinely. This observation has remained uncontroverted in substance and essence. 5. After going through the impugned orders and after appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, I find that demand of duty ....