ORDER
Archana Wadhwa
1.
The demand of duty has been confirmed against M/s SAIL and penalty imposed upon based upon the comparison of figures of manufacture as reflected in their RG-1 record and those reflected in their Annual Statistical Records. We find that an identical issue came before the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case and vide Order NO.A-1102-Cal/2000 dated 26.7.2000 their explanation as regards between RG-1 figures and those reflected in Annual Statistical Records was accepted. The explanation given by the appellants as recorded in the above order is as follow:
“4. We find that the appellant had explained before the Commissioner that their PPC department complies statistical of production and clearances of iron and steel products from different department of the steel plants and publish annual statistics which is in circulation within a period of two months from the close of the financial year. The method of compilation adopted by the statistical department is completely different from that required for the maintenance of Central Excise records. The ‘order department’ of RSP under General Manager, Materials Management keeps records and despatched advice of materials removed from the factory. Order department complies the despatch on the basis of the advanced DA copy by taking the DA weight. Again the order department takes the DA date as the basis for accounting of despatch where RG-1 despatch is shown on R/R date basis on the actual weight. The annual statistics is prepared on the basis of the despatch figures reported by order department. Accordingly they have submitted that on comparison, there would be some discrepancies towards beginning of the financial year and at the close of the financial year and for the difference between the sectional weight and actual weight.
5. Similarly in respect of allegation of clandestine removal of slab, appellant had explained that the differences is attributable to time gap in the matter for actual clearance based on RR vis-a-vis despatch advice issued by the concerned shop and the differences between the sectional weight and the actual weight.”
After taking the explanation into account the Tribunal observed that the appellants have satisfactorily explained the differences between two figures as reflected in two different records and allowed the appeal on merits as well as on limitation. Para 9 of the Tribunal’s above order is reproduced below :
“9. We agree with the submission made by the learned Advocate that based upon the differences shown in the annual financial accounts and RG-1 register, the findings of the clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained against the appellants. It is well settled law that onus to prove clandestine manufacture and clearance is upon the Revenue and required to be proved be production of sufficient evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants have been indulging into excess clearances without payment of duty. The appellants have satisfactorily explained the difference between the figure as relected in annual financial account and those entered in RG-1 for each and every item. As such we hold that the confirmation of demand of duty against the appellants is not justified. WE also find favour with the appellants, submission that the demand is barred by limitation inasmuch as the show-cause notice was issued on 5.12.90 whereas the annual financial accounts are put to circulation within a period of two months from the close of the financial year. In these circumstances it cannot be said that there was an suppression on the part of the appellants so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. In view of the foregoing the appellant succeeds on merits as also on the point of limitation. Appeal is thus allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.”
2. As the issue involved in the present appeal is an identical issue we set aside the impugned order by following the earlier order and allow the appeal.
(Dictated & pronounced in Court)