TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Formaldehyde falling under Central Excise Tariff heading 2912 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing the modvat credit/ cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs. One of the main raw materials used in the manufacture of Formaldehyde was methanol on which cenvat credit was being availed. Central Excise Officers visited the factory and office premises of the appellant on 05.03.1999 and recovered various records and also conducted physical stock verification. Finished goods (Formaldehyde) to the extent of 262.40 MT as well as raw material methanol to the extent of 32.421 MT were found short compared to the statutory record maintained by the appellant. The records resumed from the business premises was scrutinised and investiga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....However, only Annexure- 1 to 5, 7 to 20 and 20 to 25 have been provided to the appellant on 10.01.2006. Still RG-I register for three years, RG-23A register and Form-4 register was not provided them. Hence, the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. (ii) It has been alleged that a total quantity of 3996.286 MT of Formaldehyde has been clandestinely cleared. However, as per the registration certificate of the Directorate of Industries, the appellant's manufacturing capacity was only to the extent of 3,000 MT. In the year 1988-99, the appellant already declared clearances to the extent of 3066 MT whereas the alleged clandestine removal is 3337 MT. She submitted that it is impossible to manufacture 6403 MT with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant and we are convinced that all the main documents leading to the demand and its computation has already been shared with the appellant. Hence, we are of the view that they have been given a fair opportunity to advance the case against them, even in the absence of copies of some of annexures of the RUDs. Hence, we proceed to adjudicate the case on merit. 8. The search was conducted in the business premises on 05.03.1999 during which shortages were noticed both in the finished products as well as raw material in stock. The stock was ascertained making use of the dip reading method. The appellants grievance is that this is not an accurate method of ascertaining stock. We are inclined to ignore this plea for the reason that appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....test report register, formaldehyde analysis report, transport documents as well as shortage noticed at the time of stock taking. Accordingly, it has been alleged that the appellant has removed 3996.286 MT of formaldehyde during the period under consideration and duty demand on the same has been confirmed. 11. The appellant has seriously challenged the total quantity of formaldehyde allegedly manufactured and clandestinely removed. It is their submission that the installed production capacity of the appellant factory is only 3000 MT whereas in the quantification of Revenue, for the year 1998-99 the alleged clandestine removal is 3337 MT which was on top of the accounted clearance 3066 MT. We find considerable force in this argument raised b....