2015 (11) TMI 1166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") claiming the following substantial question of law:- Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in rejecting the appeal of the department without discussing the arguments put forth and the relevant provisions of law regarding maintenance of records? 3. A few facts relevant for disposal of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of CI Pipes and fittings. On 16.7.2008, the preventive staff of Commissionerate conducted search of the factory premises of the respondent on receipt of a specific information that the assessee is involved in the clandestine removal of excisable goods. At the time of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....search. The production was recorded by weight whereas in the sale invoices, the goods were sold by numbers without indicating the weight of the finished goods. Shri Kamal Kant accepted the quantum of shortage and its value and debited an amount of Rs. 16,00,306/- voluntarily vide RG 23A Part-II entry dated 16.7.2008. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 6.7.2009 was issued to the assessee. The adjudicating authority vide order dated 13.8.2010 confirmed the demand of Rs. 16,00,306/- under Section 11A of the Act and also imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecorded by weight but in the sale invoices, the goods were sold by numbers without indicating the weight of the finished goods but nothing was proved that how the stock position was verified regarding sale invoices which only showed numbers without giving their weight. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) extending the benefit of doubt to the assessee had set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The aforesaid findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) were affirmed by the Tribunal by observing that there was no other evidence on record to prove the clandestine activities of the assessee as the revenue has not conducted further investigations to establish the identity of the buyers or the suppliers of the raw-materials or the....