9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty of Rs. 1,000/- has been imposed on A.S. Periasamy, Proprietor of appellant factory. It is against this order that this appeal has been filed before us. 2. We have heard Shri V.K. Dorairaj, advocate, for the appellant, and Shri Balbir Singh, SDR for the department. 3. The learned advocate submits that the entire case against the appellant is made on the basis of two note-books; one reportedly produced by the informer and another by one Sivalingam. These records, it is submitted, were not recovered from the appellant or from his factory. The informer, it is stated, was a former employee of the factory of the appellant, who had been discharged from service for undertaking "parallel trade in biris". It is submitted that it is therefore t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department has failed to discharge the onus, which must rest on it in a case of this kind, to prove the allegation of clandestine production and removal of goods without due accountal in the statutory records and without payment of duty. The learned advocate has cited in his favour the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Leather Chemicals & Industries Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta [1984 (15) E.L.T. 451 (Trib.) = 1984 (3) ETR 153]. 9. Finally, it is submitted that the appellant was working under physical control. Therefore, the entire accountal was subject to scrutiny and checking of departmental officers. 10. Briefly responding, Shri Balbir Singh submitted that he would like to reiterate the stand of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of goods without due accountal in the statutory records and without payment of duty. We do not find these contentions tenable when we look at all the facts of the case. 13. This is a case where the Superintendent of Central Excise visited the premises of Sivalingam, who was an outworker of the factory of the appellant and in the course of the checking undertaken by him, he recovered one account-book containing details of actual quantity of biris supplied to M/s. Glass Beedi Factory. This was on 31-12-1985. On the same day, the officers also visited the Glass Beedi Factory and verified the stock and accounts, when a shortage of 36,000 Nos. of labelled biris were found. 14. Perusal of the two private account books and out-workers passbook ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te books supplied by Sivalingam. It is clearly admitted that the difference between the biris manufactured and supplied by Sivalingam and his son, as seen from the private notebooks and the authenticated out-workers pass-books is as follows : :1983 :1984 :1985 67,84,180 50,79,940 31,74,800 As against this, the total quantity accounted for by Periasamy in outworkers pass-books authenticated by the department were as follows :1983 :1984 :1985 11,14,000 21,42,000 11 ,20,000 17. Periasamy further stated that he sold 1,50,38,920 biris in bundles during the previous three years without payment of any excise duty and without accounting for them in Central Excise records. What is more, Periasamy admitted that the statement of Sivaling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
