TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advocate Mr. Tej Bahadur, Advocate. For the Respondent : **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal raising following questions as substantial questions of law: "A) Whether CESTAT has erred in not appreciating the suppression of production arisen on calculating annual electricity consumption which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n less recording of their production? E) Whether the impugned order passed by the Ld. CESTAT in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-department is perverse, illegal and unjust?" 2. This Court finds that the Commissioner had examined all the aforesaid issues and found on facts the claim and demand raised by the Revenue to be without basis. The discretion for reaching to those conclusio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duction records maintained by the respondents only after quality inspection and clearance. During the period of demand it was for the respondent assessee to determine at which stage the he enters the finished goods in his production records unlike the earlier period when an RG-1 stage was prescribed by the department. There seem to be no error in the approach adopted by the respondent in entering ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd returns he finds that production declared by the respondents in the ER- 1 returns is higher than the production recorded in the private records. Nothing has been put forth in the appeal by the revenue that above findings an discussions are incorrect in any way. E-Rreturn is the statutory return prescribed under Central Excise Law. If the total production declared in ER-1 return is higher than t....