2017 (5) TMI 176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the case are that the main appellant is engaged in the manufacture of plywood, block boards and flush doors. On 05.02.2007, a search was conducted at the factory premises, registered office-cum-godown of the main appellant and residence of the co-appellants by the Anti Evasion Branch of Central Excise department on the basis of an intelligence received that the appellants were evading central excise duty by removing their goods clandestinely. On the physical stock taking of finished goods, a shortage of finished goods of different types was detected. The physical stock taking of raw materials was also detected and there was also shortage found, therefore, it was alleged that the raw materials has been consumed in manufacture of finished go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e BIS specifications. The entries made in the ISI register are only for checking the goods as per ISI norms which the department has wrongly presumed as the production register. In fact, the appellants have cleared more goods then the production recorded in ISI register. These register pertains to only for testing the goods, therefore, the demand on account of ISI registered of Rs. 3,62,062/- and 6,25,578/- are not sustainable. 5. He further submitted that the appellant be given benefit of cum duty price on the demand confirmed on account of clandestine removal of goods on the strength of parallel invoices and the entries made in the shipra note book. 6. He further submitted that as the appellant has already paid the sum of Rs. 4 lacs pri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... note book and no other positive evidence has been produced by the Revenue for clearances of the finished goods found short and raw material found shortage used in manufacturing of the finished goods. In the absence of any positive evidence, the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the appellants that as they have admitted the demand of Rs. 3,68,685/- and Rs. 26,327/- covers the demand of Rs. 1,14,571/-, and Rs. 67,660/- therefore, demand of Rs. 67,660/- and Rs. 1,14,571/- are not sustainable. 11. There are demand of Rs. 3,62,062/- and Rs. 6,25,578/- also confirmed against the appellant on account of clandestine removal of goods made on the basis of entries in the ISI register. The arguments of the Revenue is that as the appellant is ....