2023 (6) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he case are that during the course of audit, it was noticed that the appellant holder of Central Excise registration No. AAQCS6094REM001, engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots falling under Chapter heading 72061090, appeared to have short paid Central Excise duty of Rs.86,45,221/- during FY 2015-16, in as much as there was an apparent difference of Rs.6,91,61,767/+ in total value of goods sold as shown in their balance sheet in comparison to the value shown in ER-1 returns. It was noticed that the appellant had shown value as Rs.27,24,96,537/- in the ER-1 returns, whereas in the balance sheet the value was shown as Rs. 34,16,58,304/-. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant, proposing therein recovery of Central Excise duty of Rs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....   Reason of difference 1 Rs.3,40,62,078/-  (i)   This is the amount of excise duty appearing in Balance Sheet and tallied with ER-1 Return for the Year 2015-16 as per month wise summary enclosed as Annexure-6   2 Rs.3,50,99,689/-  (ii)   This is profit from sale and purchase in commodity operations billed to M/s Achintya Commodities, M/s Shetala Mata Commodities Pvt Ltd, and M/s Subh Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Party wise details are given in separate sheets.     Rs.6,91,61,767/- Total (apparent difference in T.O. of Excisable goods) 4.2 The Appellant submits that first differential amount pertains to the excise duty, appearing in Turnover in the Financial Statements, an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ample copies of purchase bills for the year 2015-16 (Annexure-9) [all bills available] 2 M/s  Shetala Mata Commodities Pvt Ltd 45,00,838/- (a) Copy of sales ledger Accounts of party in our books for the year 2015-16 (Annexure-10) (b) Sample copies of Sales bills for the year 2015-16 (Annexure- 11) (c) Corresponding sample copies of purchase bills for the year 2015-16 (Annexure-12) [all bills available] 3 M/s  Subh Commodities 3,04,00,120/- (a) Copy of sales ledger Accounts of party in our books for the year 2015-16 (Annexure-13) (b) Sample copies of Sales bills for the year 2015-16 (Annexure-14) (c) Corresponding sample copies of purchase bills for the year 2015-16 (Annexure-15) [all b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....est. The Adjudicating Authority agreed that out of the differential amount of 6,91,61,767/- amount of Rs. 3,40,62,078/- is on account of Central Excise duty forming part of the excisable turnover and accordingly dropped the demand of Rs. 42,57,760/-. 7. As regards the balance amount of Rs. 3,50,99,689/-which was explained as pertaining to profit on sale and purchase of commodity operations, which have inadvertently been reported as sale of products. The same is part of the total profit commodity of operations, Rs.  8,52,60,853/-. The said amount of Rs. 3,50,99,689/- plus amount already shows as profit from commodity operations in the balance sheet Rs. 5,01,61,165/-, total Rs. 8,52,60,952/- which is the profit from operations in comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....okers namely i) M/s Achintya Commodities, ii) M/s Shetala Mata Commodities and iii) M/s Subh Commodities, through which the appellant have traded in commodities. Further ledger for transaction charges on commodities, brokerage on commodity transaction and commodity transaction tax details have also been produced. 10. Commissioner (Appeals) observed as follows:-  "6.1 The appellant has though contested that total net sales from commodity operations was Rs. 8,52,60,853/-, out of which the disputed amount of Rs.3,50,99,689/- was wrongly reported under 'Sales of Products' and remaining amount was shown separately. I find that the appellant has produced ledger of commodity trading account, which shows closing balance as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... International (I) P Ltd vs. CCE, C & ST, Cochin [2014(33) STR 711 (Tri. Bang) iv Rungta Projects Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Allahabad [2011 (24) STR 495 (Tri.-Del) v Reynolds Petro Chem Ltd vs. CCE & ST-Surat-I [2022(7) TMI 656-CESTAT Ahmedabad] 13. Learned AR for revenue relies on the impugned order. 14. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that appellant have lead sufficient evidence and explained the apparent difference. Both the Court below have not found anything erroneous or misgiving in the cogent explanation given by the appellant corroborated by books of accounts and vouchers. Undisputedly, appellant has profit from trading in commodities Rs. 8,52,60,853/- during the period. Further, the con....