2017 (5) TMI 558

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the year 2002-03 to 2005-06, month-wise comparison of production as per 600 units PMT vis-a-vis actual consumption of electricity was done and wherever the production recorded is less than the production arrived at on the basis of 600 unit PMT, the demand was calculated on the differential quantity and value thereof. The adjudicating authority also relied upon one evidence i.e. Kachcha chit found from the supervisor of the appellant company wherein the clearance was shown during the period 18.6.2006 to 27.6.2006 and the same was not found recorded in the excise record as well as no excise invoice was issued. Accordingly, the demand was confirmed on the basis of electricity consumption. Therefore, the appellant is before me. 2. Shri V.B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Therefore, this evidence is not relevant for the purpose of demand raised in the present case. Moreover, the partner of the appellant firm has stated in his statement that the clearance during 18.6.2006 to 27.6.2006 was escaped from recording for the reason that during the said period the appellant was working under SSI exemption and even if it is included they are within the exemption limit. Therefore, the said stray evidence cannot be used for deciding the demand for 4 years i.e. from 2002-03 to 2005-06. 3. Shri H.M. Dixit, learned Asstt. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the partner of the appellant has admitted that the electricity consumption 600 unit ....