TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rst Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute revolves around the stock taking conducted by the Internal Stock Verification Department. The periods involved are 2004-2005 as well as 2005-2006. The Annual Stock Verification exercise conducted in-house brought out shortages of various products manufactured in the integrated steel plant. The department was of the view that such shortages are liable to pay most of Central Excise duty, since they have not been accounted. On these lines two show cause notices were issued to the appellant dated 19.03.2007 as well as 27.03.2007 proposing to demand the duty due on such shortages of various products. These show cause notices were finalized by the adjudicating authority by issue of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies between the quantities are likely and no inference can be drawn that such differences in quantities have been cleared clandestinely. He also submitted that similar dispute in respect of various Integral Steel Plant of SAIL have been considered by the various benches of the Tribunal and demands raised for shortages noticing stock taking have been set aside. In particular he relied on the following decision: a) SAIL vs. Comm. Of C.Ex, Bolpur Final Order No.76142/2018 dt. 13.03.2018 passed in E/140/2007 by CESTAT, Kolkata. b) SAIL vs. CCE [2006(200) ELT 229(T). c) Rourkela Steel Plant vs. CCE [2001(137) ELT 566 (T.Kol.) 4. Ld. DR justified the impugned order. He specifically pointed out that a limit of 2% has been fixed by the CBEC in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvocate that based upon the difference shown in the annual financial accounts and RG-1 register, the findings of the clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained against the appellants. It is well settled law that onus to prove clandestine manufacture and clearance is upon the Revenue and required to be proved by production of sufficient evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants have been indulging into excess clearances without payment of duty. The appellants have satisfactorily explained the difference between the figures as reflected in annual financial account and those entered in RG-I for each and every item. As such we hold that confirmation of demand of duty against the appellants is not justified. W....