TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1649
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Ms. Rinki Arora, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand against the respondents have been dropped by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), holding that the excess stock found at the time of physical verification is on the basis of estimation and Revenue has failed to produce any corroborative evidence for alleging that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re manufactured by appellant and cleared clandestinely. Aggrieved from the said order, Revenue is before me. 3. Learned AR submits that in this case, the excess stock found in the factory of the appellant has not been explained by the respondents and the said goods were not recorded in the statutory records. Therefore, these goods were unaccounted goods which were said to be cleared clande....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence to allege that goods are meant for removal of goods clandestinely, therefore, impugned order is to be upheld. 5. Heard the parties. 6. Sole ground taken by the Revenue to file the appeal is that weighment done at the time of investigation is correct but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the production of whole of the manufacture to determine the goods produced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss which was not entered in the statutory records. In this case, the allegation against the respondent is that respondent has manufactured the excess goods to clear clandestinely. Therefore the case law relied upon by the learned AR is not applicable to the facts of this case. As discussed above, if the production of two days i.e. 18-12-2010 and 19-12-2010 are taken into consideration as per previ....