9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 that he is trying to wreak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled 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 department before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 of Sivalingam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied 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 admitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Sivalingam are fully supported by the records seized by the department. Retraction was made after many days and, therefore, seems to be in the nature of an after-thought. In the case of Sivalingam, while making the retraction, it is stated that he neither knew how to read or write. The statement recorded says that it was read out to him. What is more is that the statement is supported by records furnished by Sivalingam himself. In the case of Periasamy s statement, it is not at all claimed that he could not read or write and his statement is also fully supported by documents seized from him. 18. In the light of the above discussion, we uphold the demand for duty as well as the imposition of penalty. 19. Dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
