ORDER
P.C. Jain, Vice President
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise concerned has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 17,965/- on drawal of samples of cement for testing in the laboratory within the premises of the appellants herein. It has been alleged by the Revenue and found so by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order that the samples drawn were not according to the Notification 171/70-C.E., dated 21-11-1970 inasmuch as the maintenance of records as a condition stipulated in that notification has not been fulfilled by the appellants herein. The Commissioner has relied essentially for this finding on the appellants’ letter dated 16-2-1994, a copy of which is on record at page 9 (Annexure ‘A’).
2. We have heard the learned SDR, Shri K. Srivastava in support of the Revenue’s case. We have also gone through the appeal memo as also the impugned order. From a perusal of the said letter dated 16-2-1994 the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner cannot be upheld. The said letter states as follows : –
“(1) Entry of daily production of cement is made in the RG 1 Register on next working day.
(2) The quantity of cement produced on any day is arrived at on the basis of silo dip measurement and clearances of cement. (3) Cement samples are drawn from two points - (i) from grinding stage, and (ii) from loading stage. (4) In the register of samples, which is being maintained by the laboratory, the quantity of each sample is entered as and when drawn from the two points as explained above. The unutilised quantity which is sent back to process, is also entered in this register and when returned. (5) The net quantity of samples drawn is not being added to the figure of production either on day-to-day basis or monthly basis, but as such quantity is so much insignificant compared to the total quantity of production, it does not materially effect the figure of production. However, from the month of Feb. '94, we will add the quantity to the figure of production on the last day of the month. (6) In the RG 1 Register, the net quantity of samples of cement is entered at the end of each month.
In the end we would like to mention that the system of accounting, for production of cement & clearances and also for samples drawn has been in the knowledge of the Department and the records are being regularly inspected and audited.”
It is, therefore, seen that a proper record is being maintained by the appellants in the form of register of samples maintained in the laboratory. The register contains the quantity of each sample drawn by them. The unutilised quantity which is sent back to the process is also entered in this register as and when returned. The appellants, however, made an admission to the effect that the net quantity of samples drawn is not being added to the figure of production either on day-to-day basis or on monthly basis on the ground that such quantity is very insignificant compared to the total quantity of production. In our view this is also not very material inasmuch as they have stated that the unutilised quantity is returned to the process and not to the production account or to the Silo. It is further mentioned by the appellants in their letter that the net quantity of sample of cement is entered in the end of each month. We are therefore, satisfied that the proper accounts have been maintained by the appellants. The allegation of the Commissioner in his findings that they have not maintained proper account and for this reasoning the benefit of the concerned notification is denied, is, therefore, not correct. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
3. In view of our aforesaid findings, we need not go into the question of limitation.