TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment and ER 6 return filed by the appellant for the years 2012-13 and 2014-15 to 2015-16, there was difference in consumption of preform figures as reported in both the above documents and since the Appellant has not accounted for the production of PET bottles from preforms in their daily stock account, it is to be considered that all such preforms taken into use as shown in ER 6 returns were converted into PET bottles and thus the Appellant had manufactured pet bottles in excess of what is shown in ER 1 returns and hence it was stated that the appellant has clandestinely removed such goods without payment of excise duty. Based on the above, on July 27, 2018, the Commissioner of CGST & CX, Audit II Commissionerate (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) issued a Show Cause - cum - Demand Notice to the Appellant proposing to demand excise duty on the differential quantity of preform consumption as per ER 6 and form 3CD by considering 100% conversion of preform to PET bottles. The appellant vide reply dated April 25, 2019 duly complied to the said show cause - cum - demand notice pointing out inter alia that there is no difference in consumption figures as per ER 6 and 3CD f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umbai) b. SHIVALAYA ISPAT & POWER PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR 2017 (357) E.L.T. 742 (Tri. - Del.) c. GOLDEN STEEL CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., KOLKATA-II 2017 (347) E.L.T. 570 (Tri. - Kolkata) d. HINDUSTHAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. Versus C.C.E. & S.T., PATNA 2012 (284) E.L.T. 254 (Tri. - Kolkata) e. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD Versus COSMOS FILMS LTD. 2013 (292) E.L.T. 116 (Tri. - Mumbai) 3.2 The learned Advocate has also produced reconciliation copies to show the actual wastage of preform and PET bottles during various stage of manufacturing depicted by the flowchart and thus concluded that there is no difference in figures of consumption of pre form between 3CD and ER 6 for the period under dispute. 3.3. It is his submission that the demand is also barred by limitation as the demand covers the period from 2012-13 and 2014-15 to 2015-16 whereas the SCN was issued on July 27, 2018 much after the expiry of normal period of limitation. He further submits that the spot memo was issued in August 2014 whereas the SCN was issued in July 2018 and thus the question of invoking extended per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2013 (292) E.L.T. 116 (Tri. - Mumbai) held that : "6. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the issue in detail on the basis of record produced by the respondent and thereafter has recorded the following observations. "................. I have perused the quantity of shortages shown in form 3 CD yearwise which are appearing in Question No. 8 of statement of J. Gupta dated 12-8-1997. Accordingly, total shortages reflected during 92-93 to 95-96 were 60 MT and particularly in the year 1995-96 they were shown as 11MT as against 67MT for the same year i.e. 1995-96 as were calculated and mentioned in Annexure B of the impugned show-cause notice dated 4-12-1997 issued by the Addl. Commissioner Central Excise Aurangabad. The variations in shortage have not been properly investigated by the Revenue. There is no evidence to substantiate that these raw materials had been cleared clandestinely. On the contrary there appears force in Appellants' contention that there was processing loss during the manufacturing of final product. ........................... In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... EX. & CUS., BHUBANESWAR-I 2020 (374) E.L.T. 459 (Tri. - Kolkata) held that :- "7. We find that the issue to be decided in this case is whether the appellant has clandestinely removed the goods on which the duty demand has been made. We find that in the entire proceedings, no evidence, much less corroborative evidence, has been adduced to show that input goods have been procured to manufacture goods for clandestine clearance. No evidence for extra production or unaccounted cash or statement of buyers or transporters has been obtained. It is a settled legal position that charge of clandestine clearance is a serious charge and the onus to prove the same is on the Revenue by adducing some evidence. The Tribunal has taken consistent view that in absence of corroborative evidence, the charge of clandestine clearance cannot be levelled against the assessee. Some of the decisions are as below : • Ghodavat Pan Masala Products Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (175) E.L.T. 182 (Tri.-Mumbai) • CCE v. Supreme Fire Works Factory - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 510 (Tri.-Chennai) • CCE v. Suvidha Limited - 2009 (236) E.L.T. 675 (Tri.-Del.) 9....................... ....