ORDER
Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 501/2003/Pondicherry dated 26-9-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai by which the Commissioner has allowed the appeal of the assessee.
2. Brief facts are that the assessee-respondents are manufacturers of multi wall paper bags falling under Chapter 4819.19 of CETA, 1985. They removed inputs under Rule 57F(4) to job worker for the manufacture of Extensible Sack Craft Paper (ESKP for short). The allegation of the department was that no waste was returned from the job worker nor was there any clearance of waste from the job worker’s premises made on payment of duty. Therefore, show cause notice was issued which culminated in the order of adjudication passed by the Assistant Commissioner confirming demand of a total duty of Rs. 1,82,992/- under Section 11A of the CE Act, 1944 and imposing penalty of Rs. 2000/- under Rule 173Q of the CE Rules. 1944. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Revenue in the grounds of appeal inter alia has stated that the conclusion reached by the lower appellate authority that the original authority without any evidence or material, had done rough estimate and guess work, is not correct and that the certificate from the Chartered Accountant was not produced before the original authority.
2. Heard Shri A. Jayachandran, JDR who reiterated the department’s view.
3. Heard Shri M.V. Raman, learned Counsel for the assessee who submitted that the lower appellate authority has passed a reasoned order and he prayed that it should be sustained.
4. I have considered the submissions and gone through the case records. I observe that the lower appellate authority has rightly held that in the present case, the original authority has confirmed the duty demand based on rough estimate without any evidence. He has also rightly noted about the absence of any column in RT 12 return regarding removal of waste. Therefore, the observation made by the original authority about non-disclosure of waste in the RT 12 return was uncalled for. I further find that in the present case, the original authority has asked the assessee to prove the negative by holding that the assessee failed to let in any evidence that their job worker has not sold any waste. On the other hand, it was for the Revenue to have let in evidence in support of their allegation that the job worker has sold the waste. They have not done this exercise and want to confirm duty without any material. On going through the entire evidence on record and the pleas made, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and I uphold the same. The Revenue appeal is devoid of merits and I reject the same. Ordered accordingly.