Dismissing the appeal the Court held that  the quantity of different quality of rice produced from milling of paddy could not be ascertained since the assessee did not maintain a stock register quality-wise. No evidence had been produced by the assessee to substantiate its submissions. In the absence of qualitative details it would be difficult to examine the sales of the assessee. The higher quality of a rice could be shown as sold at a lower rate in the bills. There was flaw in the maintenance of the details.  Order of Tribunal is affirmed. (AY.2008-09)