2017 (9) TMI 443

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d appeals are having a common issue and, therefore, they are taken together for decision. The common issue involved is whether the figures reported as sales figures of Aerated Drinks also called Soft Drinks to the supplier of concentrate are more reliable as compared to the Central Excise records maintained in the form RG-1 and quantity manufacture reported in RT-12 returns submitted to the Range Superintendent regularly on the monthly basis for the period from 1988 to 1993. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the M/s Varanasi Bottling Company Ltd., M/s Amrit Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Brindavan Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. were manufacturers of  Aerated Soft Drinks  falling under Chapter 22 of first Schedule to Central Excise Tariff A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erence the manufacture was under reported by the appellants in their RT-12 returns and under such presumption issued show cause notices to the appellants M/s Varanasi Bottling Company Ltd. was issued a show cause notice dated 25.02.1994/29.02.1994 wherein in Para 18.2 it has been stated  the sales reported by the bottlers on weekly and monthly basis to M/s Parle Exports Ltd. appears to be actual sales effected by the bottlers in their franchise area and also further stated that it appeared that sales reported by the bottlers and compiled by M/s Parle Exports Ltd. for the purpose of internal planning were the actual production and sales figures which should be the basis for decision of Central Excise Duty. It was further stated in Para ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s namely Mr. C.P. Kejriwal, Mr. Rakesh Ladhani and Mr. M.D Ladhani were called upon to show cause as to why personal penalty under Rule 209 A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 should not be imposed on them. All the appellants contested the show cause notice. M/s Varanasi Bottling Company Ltd. has submitted before the Original Authority that there were instances where the figures reported in RT-12 were more than the figures reported as of production to M/s Parle Exports Ltd. and, therefore, the figures reported to M/s Parle Exports Ltd. cannot be the basis for determination of the quantity of goods manufacture by them. Similar submissions were also made by the other appellants however, the Original Authority did not appreciate the arguments and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere instances where the figures reported in RT-12 returns were higher than those reported to M/s Parle Exports Ltd. and that due to such reasons the figures reported to M/s Parle Exports Ltd. cannot be the basis for demand of duty. He has further submitted that entire demand is based on presumption that the figures reported to M/s Parle Exports Ltd were correct and those reflected in RT-12 returns were wrong. He has further submitted that the show cause notices issued on the basis of presumption cannot sustain and that there is no evidence of receipt of any raw material manufacture, transportation and sales of the goods manufactured also Revenue has not submitted evidence in respect of any financial transactions in excess of the transaction....