ORDER

Per Shri V.P. Gulati: This is a transferred appeal. The Hon'ble President of the Tribunal has directed the appeal to be transferred to SRB for disposal as the Special Bench of the Tribunal has observed that when the matter came up for hearing no question relating to interpretation of Notification 22/82 was found involved and therefore, the appeal is required to be heard by SRB, Madras.

2. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. Under the impugned order, the learned lower appellate authority has held that the respondents did not exceed the limit prescribed for availing the benefit of Notification 22/82 as the evidence in support of the charge of over writing against the respondents in the records was not sufficient to sustain the charge. The appellant-Collector, however, in the grounds of appeal has urged that the respondents had for 31/12/84 entered production as 20 gross for that day, which was later corrected as 10 gross with the intention to avail of the benefit of Notification 22/82. It has been urged that the respondents after entering the figure 20 gross found that they would be exceeding the limit and would be deprived of the benefit of the Notification 22/82, if the figure 20 gross is maintained, and, therefore, they struck off that figure and entered the figure 10 gross. It has been urged that the respondents had the motive to change figure according to the procedure, the respondents are required to make entries neatly and truthfully in the register, and once an entry has been made it has to be presumed that the correct figure had been entered. It was further submitted that the respondents' plea that their clerk had entered the figure wrongly and the figure was only approximate and later corrected as per box filling register, was not acceptable. The learned DR reiterated the grounds of appeal. On a query from the Bench he fairly conceded that at the relevant time match units were under the physical control and the officers would have checked the stock during their visits and normally there would have been check of the production and clearance figures as and when release orders of matches for home consumption were given.

3. The respondents have filed a cross objection which is in the nature of comments. It has been urged that there is no corroborative evidence that the respondents had in fact produced 20 gross matches instead of 10 gross shown as production for a particular day nor was there any evidence to show that the respondents had removed 10 gross of matches alleged to have been produced in excess of 10 gross clandestinely. The respondents further pleaded that the error had been corrected by the clerk and no motive should be attributed. In any case the department has not discharged the burden of proof in support of the charge. It has also been pleaded that the respondents had submitted RT-3 returns regarding production of matches for the relevant period i.e. 12/84 on 4.1.85 and thereafter the sector inspector on 11.1.85 had granted clearance of 750 grosses of 50s after check of the records and no irregularity was found. The-respondents have also made a plea on limitation stating that since show cause notice was issued only on 27.6.85, the demand can be raised only for the period upto 27.12.85 while the production in question relates to the period upto 31.12.84.

4. I have considered the pleas made by both/ the sides. The demand has been raised on the sole ground that entry for production of matches for 31.12.84 had been corrected to read as 10 gross instead of the original entry of 20 gross. The plea of the Revenue is that if the figure 20 gross is taken as the production the respondents will exceed the limit for the purpose of availing the benefit of Notification 22/82. It has been urged that after the figure 20 gross had been entered, the total production of matches in 12/84 was found to have been exceeded the limit prescribed for the pu