TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 26.03.1999, the Central Excise officers of Anti-Evasion Unit of Bolpur Commissionerate visited the assessees factory and conducted stock verification. It was found shortage of labelled Biris (with packing Sl.No.) of 30,00,000 (30 lakhs) sticks and unbranded and unbaked Biris of 1,42,48,000 sticks. It was also found excess of labelled & packed Biris without sl. Numbers of 49,26,500 sticks. A show cause Notice dated 08.09.1999 was issued proposing confiscation of excess Biris and demand of duty and to impose penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty and also imposed penalties amongst others. By order No.A-732-734/KOL/2007 dated 01.05.2007 the Tribunal confirmed the demand of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the basis of the entries in the note book, the charge of clandestine removal cannot be leveled. The notebooks were maintained by Shri Jyotirmoy Das and his friend in their individual capacity as stated by Shri Rabindra Nath Das, partner of the appellant firm. It is categorically submitted that the onus lies with the department to establish the charge of clandestine removal. It is stated that the demand of duty of Rs. 29,75,336/- were raised on the basis of some entries in some record which has no relation with the accounts of the appellant assesee. 3. The ld.AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. It is submitted that the Tribunal in earlier order upheld the demand of duty of short....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od from 15.2.97 to 21.3.99 out of which 425048100 sticks suppressed without being recorded in the statutory record. Rs.29,75,336.00 Total Rs.33,71,238.00 I find that the Tribnal in its earlier order upheld the demand of duty of Rs. 21,000/- as mentioned in sl.No.1 of the above table. In de novo adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the balance portion of the demand i.e. sl.No.2 to 6 of the table. The ld.Counsel strongly contended that the stock verification had not been undertaken properly. The Tribunal in earlier order upheld the demand of duty on the shortage of labeled biris as ascertained during the stock verification which was accepted by the assessee as no appeal was filed by them. Hence, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant cannot accept the evidence of note books partly, unless it has submitted a statement of reconciliation of the said notebook. In the present case, the appellant failed to reconcile the entries in the notebooks and therefore, the demand of duty on the balance quantity, shortage of unbranded and unbaked Biris is justified. In any event, the ld.Counsel submitted that the Central Excise officers had not recorded the statements of the contractors. In this context, the relevant portions of the findings of the adjudicating authority is reproduced below:- 7.8 With regard to the 4th & 5th points of charges of evasion of duty, my observations are as follows: (i) At the time of taking physical stock, 09 (nine) notebooks were recove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h receipts of Kachcha Birisfrom the said 09(nine) contractors and subsequent clearances of the same (either after processing or as such) were found not to have been reflected in their statutory Register (RG-12A) establishing the fact that such quantities of Biris were cleared by the assessee in a clandestine manner without endorsing the same in excise records with the intention to evade payment of duty thereon. (viii) All the 09(nine) contractors were summoned several times, but nobody dared to face investigation for obvious reasons. (ix) The details of examination/scrutiny of the entries in such recovered Notebooks and its corroboration with that in another Seized Record mrked 22/M/99has been narrated in the preceding Paras No.2.9....