2014 (5) TMI 981

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....B. Sharma, DR JUDGEMENT Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: The appellants are engaged in manufacture of sugar and molasses falling under Chapter Head 17011190 and 17031000 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants vide their letter dated 22.06.2009 intimated to their Superintended Central Excise having jurisdiction over their factory that a quantity of total 1500.00 Qtls....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-8(c) also revealed total quantity of cane crushed was 43,48,434 Qtls and Sugar bagged was 3,81,685 Qtls showing recovery as 8.78%. Total molasses made was 2,32,738 Qtls i.e. 5.35%. It was surfaced that they had excess production of molasses and sugar during sugar season 2008-09 and did not accounted for in their records with intention to evade payment of Central Excise duty. The excess quantity o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d and is recorded by the State Excise Officials having physical control over the molasses. In the instant case, contrary to the normal trend, molasses have been shown as excess. Threrfore, it has been rightly assumed that excess quantity of sugar i.e. 2460 Qtls. Relating to 1500 Qtls. of molasses has been produced and removed clandestinely since no record of removal is present. 2. The appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp;       On the basis of the facts of the present case, it also cannot be disputed that the burden lies upon the Department to prove the allegation regarding clandestine manufacture and removal of Sugar. But, I find that in this case, the fact of storage of excess molasses was not only undisputed but it was clearly admitted by the appellants themselves. It is also n....