9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said licensee for the period from 4/73 to 3/76 found that the party had cleared excisable goods valued Rs. 1,22,118 from the factory without payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 9158/- leviable on the goods under gate passes during the period 19-7-1973 to 17-7-1973[ii] without debiting the amount of duty in their personal Ledger Account. The production and the clearance of the goods appears to have not been accounted for in the R.G.1 Register of the party. The details of all such clearances are enclosed herewith as Annexure A. 2. Accordingly, the appellants herein were asked to show cause as to why duty of Rs. 9158/- should not be demanded from them under Rule 10A and why penalty should not be imposed upon them. 3. The appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the Tribunal, the appellants have, inter alia, urged that the version of the Deputy Collector that Shri D.P. Singhal, Chief Chemist of the appellants authenticated the details copied out from the impugned gate-pass book is incorrect. The Audit Party took signatures, it is alleged, on one page alone. They did not take his signatures in token of the correctness of copying these particulars. It is stated that Shri Singhal at no stage admitted that the impugned gate-pass book or the particulars copied out belonged to the appellants or the signatures appearing on the said impugned G.P.1 book were his. 5. The learned advocate for the appellants has urged that the above ground, among other grounds, was taken up in appeal before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were made before issuing the show cause notice. Instead the enquiry/investigation undertaken by the department was after issuing the show cause notice, with the sales tax authorities and purported buyers of the goods clandestinely removed and no evidence of any such alleged removal was found by the department. He submits that despite these facts, the appellants are sought to be punished for lapses of the Audit Party who ought to have either detained the alleged gate-pass book, in its own possession, or even if returned to the appellants, it should have been signed by the incharge of the Audit Party or the Auditor concerned who noted the particulars from that gate-pass, to substantiate the case of alleged evasion. Accordingly, he submits th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or authentication by Shri D.P. Singhal has not been produced before us by the department; nor is it available in the impugned order. This to our mind is crucial to the decision of this case. In the absence of the exact copy of the particulars noted down by the Audit Party and the form of alleged authentication or verification of such particulars, we are unable to give a categorical finding. 9. In normal circumstances, we would have remanded this case back to the adjudicating authority for looking into the above aspect and decide the matter afresh. But we find that the stakes of revenue are merely below Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), apart from the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed by the original authority, no important issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
