TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Appellant. He submits that the records which are the basis for administration of tax law were not found to be with discrepancies nor the records faulted without any material brought on record. There is no scope under the law to rely on any other documents which are not known to law and bring charges against the appellant. The appellant was quite cooperative to Revenue to explain that the allegations brought out by the show-cause notice under different paragraphs have no basis. In view of the material evidence available with the appellant to reconcile discrepancy, if any, the documents filed by the appellant which are available in the respective paper book before the Tribunal may be examined by Revenue and su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f input alleged has come into RG-23A Part I after the Balance Sheet data was not examined by Revenue except drawing an abrupt conclusion. Thirdly, how without the inputs being issued manufacture was carried out by appellant was not appreciated by Authority below. There was no allegation of clandestine manufacture and that has not been alleged in the show-cause notice. Therefore, without any cogent evidence bringing the questionable conduct of the appellant as to suppression of purchase of the input or any extra purchase made to avail credit without being used in manufacture, the appellant cannot be denied of Modvat credit. 3. Ld. Counsel's further submission is that when the appellant came forward to explain its case reconciling the alle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose who are personally penalised were merely imputed to charge or without any basis. The returns filed regularly were all along available with the Department. Therefore in absence of any evidence being brought to record to squarely cover the appellant under proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, there cannot be any proceeding against the appellant nor against the persons who have been brought to charges. Since the proceeding is time-barred for no satisfaction of the elements of proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, there shall not be any penalty on the appellant. Ld. counsel argues that Shri Dharam Pal has faced unnecessary charges and there is levy of penalty of Rs. 2 lakh for no reason. He should be exonerated f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the blending register or any other record. Therefore, the one day adjustment of the inputs and that too on the first day of the financial year has brought the appellant to the charges properly. 6. Heard both the sides carefully and extensively for long time. We have gone through the discussion and finding portion of the order. We are satisfied that when the issue was framed on the basis of the balance sheet figures, that needs to be tested since those figures were considered to be basis of charge while the statutory record under Central Excise Act, 1944 are the full proof figures. To our mind, the balance sheet does not appear to be recognised document under the law to bring an allegation and should be held to be legal basis for char....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out a clear evidence that its RG-23A Part-I record is not challenged by Revenue nor has not been faulted the same leading any evidence to the contrary. There was no physical verification of the stock done by Revenue. Therefore the peculiar figures are the only basis to undergo tests of law. Ld. adjudicating authority should carefully look into the scope of show cause notice when the returns filed by the appellant were never faulted and that is not apparent from the order. He should not travel beyond the show cause notice without any cogent evidence available to satisfy ingredients of proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. He has to satisfy the record to hold that the proceeding is not time-barred and proved by elements t....