9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f excise by Notification No. 68/63, dated 4-5-1963 issued under Section 12 of the Act :- I. Goods detained/seized from the delivery van No. MMP 799 dated 16-4-85/18-4-85 respectively. Description Quantity (Kgs.) Value (Rs.) Polyvinyl Acetate Dispersion (Modified) 1,110 28 , 860.00 II. Goods detained/seized from the factory premises of M/s. Nevichem Synthetic Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 16-4-1985/18-4-1985 respectively. Polyvinyl Acetate Dispersion (Modified) 5,400 1,40,400.00 III. Goods seized from the premises of M/s. Nevichem Agencies on 18-4-1985. Polyvinyl Acetate Dispersion (Modified) 5,771.60 Rs. 1,50,061.60 Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of non-duty paid PAD manufactured by the appellants and subsequently sold to NA. 4. The allegation is based on an Exercise Note Book recovered from the appellants during the search in which entries relating to production during certain batches have been found for the period 16-3-1985 to 12-4-1985 during which period no entries were made in the RG1 Account. In his statement dated 25-9-1985, Shri Navnit H. Joshi, one of the Directors of the appellant company, had confirmed on being shown this Exercise Note Book that 5 batches of PAD each consisting of 1030 Kgs. were manufactured during the period from 16-3-1985 to 31-3-1985 (total quantity 5150 Kgs.) and 7 batches (total quantity 7210 Kgs.) were manufactured during the period 1-4-1985 to 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1030 Kgs. 6/85 11-4-85 1030 Kgs. 7/85 12-4-85 1030 Kgs. Total 7210 Kgs. 6. The argument is that the entries do not reflect the production, but only the commencement of the batch. The recovery of duty in respect of batches taken for manufacture on 30-3-1985 and 31-3-1985 will not be desirable inasmuch as the production can only be obtained after 16 to 20 hours and as such, the goods could not be produced for modification earlier than 1-4-1985. The further claim is that the appellants became eligible for fresh exemption from duty on PAD in the financial year which commenced on 1-4-1985 under Notification No. 85/85, dated 17-3-1985 and, the quantity of PAD which ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production but only the dates on which the raw materials were taken and manufacture commenced was not acceptable. 9. Shri Murthy also submitted that Rule 52A prohibited delivery of excisable goods except under a Gate-Pass and this requirement was, therefore, applicable even to goods which were not dutiable or exempt. He cited the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory Industrial Estate v. Supdt. of Central Excise, [1986 (23) E.L.T. 313], in which it was held that excisable goods do not become non-excisable after exemption. The proviso to sub-rule (2) made it clear that a Gate-Pass had to be issued even for goods removed for captive consumption within the factory for manufacture of other goods. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken into account cumulatively, no doubt is left that the argument of the learned Consultant is without any basis and deserves to be rejected. 11. Since this is a case of suppression of production and failure to account for the excisable goods in the statutory accounts, such goods were liable to confiscation under Rules 9(2), 52A, 173Q and 226 and the Polyvinyl Acetate Dispersion (Modified) was liable to confiscation under Section 120 of the Customs Act as made applicable to like matters under Section 12 of the Central Excises Salt Act. We do not consider that in the circumstances of the case, the fine in lieu of confiscation was excessive and reject the prayer for reduction in fine. Since the delivery van was used for transportation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
