TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24th January, 2001, the Central Excise officers visited the Respondent's factory and found one Gate Register for the period from 23rd June, 1998 to 15th January, 2000. The Gate Register contained the details of receipt and removal of goods/stores etc. The Gate Register was maintained by the security p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, I find that the main contention of the Revenue is that authenticity of the Gate Register was proved by the statements of various persons and Shri A.N. Chatterjee Manager in his statement dated 31-10-01 stated that they did not undertake repairing work. It is seen that the Respondents in reply to Show Cause Notice took a stand that the alleged q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....job which was recorded at para 10 and its sub-paras in the Adjudication Order. After considering the details of repairing works, no evidence was found to establish the charge of clandestine removal of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue and the relevant portion of the findings is reproduced below: "The respondents in the cross objection has given details o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Appellants factory. The Appellants were using same Gate passes twice, it has been held that the removal of consignment was without payment of duty. I find that in the present case, the facts are different and therefore, the said case law is not applicable. The facts in the case of Bharat Plast (supra) is that once production was recorded and shown as balance and compared to the quantity availa....