TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant for the alleged removal of 1,87,20,615 nos. of biris clandestinely, is liable to pay duty of Rs. 2,05,361/- on the basis of private records. 2. Brief facts of the case are that there was a surprise visit by the Preventive Officers on 02.11.2006 at the appellant premises. Physical verification of the stock of biris was carried out, alleged excess stock of 70,500 nos. of biris as well as unaccounted stock of 1,01,800 Biris. It appeared to Revenue that appellant have suppressed the production of 1,87,20,615 biris, as per Annexure-F to the show cause notice. Further, they have failed to make entries properly in their stock account in RG-12A register, and have further removed biris clandestinely, resulting into short payment/ non-payment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that some quantity of unlabelled biris are also lying in adjoining premises, which are the stock of biris purchased by way of trading and sold out in the market as these are not fit for labelling and marketing, under their brand name - Swastik Panch. But the officers also seized the stock of 1,01,800 nos. of biris from the adjoining premises, alongwith stock of 70,500 nos. of biris recovered as unaccounted from the factory premises, under the belief that appellant is indulging in clandestine manufacturing and clearances from the adjoining premises, which is not registered. Further, Revenue recovered 8 nos. of paper slip showing receipt of biris from Abdul Salam a biri Thekedar. In reply to show cause notice, the appellant had explained tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion from the buyers of the alleged clandestinely removed goods. Further, it is urged that as the appellant/ Proprietor was not in good mental health and undergoing treatment, the statement given to the excise authorities cannot be relied upon for fastening the huge duty without any corroborative evidence. Accordingly, the learned Counsel prays for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order. 5. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue relied on the impugned order. 6. Considering the rival submission and on perusal of the impugned order, It appears that reliance has been placed on the statement dated 02.11.2006, 03.11.2006 and 14.11.2006 where the appellant have admitted that he was purchasing loose biris from biri t....