9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants alleging that on 21-1-1986, 22-1-1986, 5-2-1986 and 11-7-1986, the appellants removed 956 tins of vegetable product in excess of what was recorded in the RG-1 register. It was, therefore, alleged that the appellants contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 52A, 53,173G, 173F and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by clandestinely removing those 956 tins of vegetable product without payment of duty of Rs. 22,444.56. After adjudicating the case, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh demanded duty of Rs. 22,444.56 in respect of those 956 tins of vegetable product under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10.000/- on the appellants under Rules 9(2), 173Q and 226 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Desh Raj and the appellants is Principal to Principal. Note book seized from a third party (Shri Desh Raj) cannot be used against the appellants. No presumption can be drawn against the appellants on the basis of the note book. Note book has no evidenciary value as against the appellants. In support of his argument, the Learned Consultant has relied on the decision reported in 1983 E.L.T. 2208 (Allahabad) in the case of Lalit Kumar v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Meerut and Another. In support of his argument that many of the entries in the note book are not authenticated by any signature and there are overwritings, the learned Consultant has shown to me entries recorded in the note book on 21-1-1986, 22-1-1986, 5-2-1986 and 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1 register. This is confirmed by the statement of Shri Desh Raj. A statement of payments made to Shri Desh Raj for his services was submitted to the Collector, but the same was not considered by him. He has also argued that Collector, in paragraph 14 of the impugned order, has relied on the table of clearances prepared by the Superintendent (Preventive), but the said statement was not made available to the appellants. This has resulted in the denial of the principles of natural justice. The learned consultant for the appellants has argued that the period under allegation is from January, 1986 to July, 1986, during which 956 tins of vegetable product valued at Rs. 2,24,445.60 Paise are alleged to have been clandestinely removed. He has stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng is not authenticated by any signature. This is one of the entries in dispute. On 5-2-1986 there is an entry of packing 2000 tins which is not authenticated by any initial. There is an entry of loading 6234 tins which is authenticated by initial. The digit 6" in the above figure of 6234 is overwritten. On the same date, there is figure 3331 tins against unloading. There is correction in this figure. On 11-7-1986, the entry is in Gurumukhi. However, Shri Jain has explained that on that date there is an entry of Ghee loading 2276 tins. This figure bears overwriting and is also not authenticated by any initial. Looking to the various entries in the other pages of the note book, I find that there are innumerable entries which are not authent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
