TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....auto components of motor vehicles like Maruti Udyog, Mahindra & Mahindra, General Motors, Honda Siel Co. Ltd. and Ford India Ltd. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 08.12.2005 and 09.12.2005, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result, shortages of HR/CR sheets were detected and some of the final products were not entered into RG-23-Part I register. 3. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against them for confirmation of demand of duty of Rs.20,65,497/- (Rupees twenty lakh sixty five thousand four hundred and ninety seven only) as also for imposition of penalty. The same resulted in passing of an order by the Addl. Commissioner confirming the demand and imposing penalties. 4. On appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hed goods. It is their submission that the visiting staff had prepared two computerised stock statements in the manner so as to show shortage of finished goods equivalent to the shortage found in the stocks of raw materials. They have also pointed out that Sh. Girdhari Lal authorised signatory and one of the shareholders in the appellants firm in his statement dated 19.9.2006 had denied that they had removed the stocks found short clandestinely without payment of duty and that the statement of Shri Gansham Dass, Director of the appellant company has only been relied to establish the case of clandestine removal. On the technical sides regarding production of stocks found short during verification the appellant have pointed out that in order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 10700 pcs. were detected is one of the evidence relied upon to establish the clandestine removal of these goods. These computerised stock statements have been described as the parallel record maintained by the appellants. To corroborate this clandestine removal, statement dated 8.12.2005 of Shri Ghansham Das Bassi director of the appellants has been relied upon. The appellants in their grounds of appeal have strongly contested the genuineness of the computerized statement prepared on 9.12.2005. The appellant submit that they were maintaining the stocks of finished goods manually in RG-I registers and no computerized records were maintained by them. That the computerized records do not contain the details of datewise production/clearance a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, that could have been retrieved from the computer for the year 2004-05 and also onwards till the date of visit of the staff. Further, the computerized statement dated 9.12.2005 contains the monthly figures of production and clearances and not the date-wise production and clearance. Therefore the said computerized stock statement cannot be considered as evidence to establish the case of evasion of duty under Section 36 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the same does not fulfil the above noted conditions laid under sub section 2 of Section 36 B of the Act. 6. He also took into consideration of various case laws and held that the charges of clandestine removal cannot be upheld against the respondents. 7. The Revenue as against the a....