2016 (6) TMI 542

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....led Central Excise Appeal No. 31/2015 before the High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court vide their order dated 03.11.2015 set aside the said final order of the Tribunal and restored to the Revenue's appeal for a decision afresh. The Court directed that CESTAT will first address the question framed, namely, what is the effect of non-production by the Department of the original records of the case which have been relied upon by the Appellate Authority in rendering a finding in favour of the assesse. 2.  We have heard both the sides and perused appeal records. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/assesse were engaged in the production of un-manufactured branded chewing tobacco liable to Central Excise Duty. Based on c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erial, to assert that whatever raw-material  procured were tallying with the production and clearance as entered in statutory records of RG-1 Register and corresponding RT-12 Returns. The particulars contained in the loose sheets were claimed to have been dealt with/in production figures of RG-I stock register. This claim of the proprietor through his statement dated 01.08.2003 was not accepted by the Original Authority. However, the contents of the statutory records were admitted to be correct by the appellate authority who agreed with the appellant assesse on this account. On appeal by the Revenue, the Members of the Division Bench had difference of opinion on the correctness of the decision by the id. Commissioner (Appeals). The mat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... final finding of this Tribunal. The original records-RG-1 and RT 12 returns were not produced before us when the case was decided vide final order dated 30.03.2015. We not that there was a difference of opinion between members in the Division Bench regarding correctness of impugned order of id. Commissioner (appeals) and the matter was referred a third member for resolution. The difference of opinion is mainly on the admissibility of confessional statement to sustain clandestine removal when the same was retracted almost two years later. The authenticity of the original document was not at that time a point of dispute. However, on reference, the third Member elaborately discussed about the authenticity of the R.G. -1 register. He held that....