9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-6-1980, passed by the Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. It is being disposed of by us as an appeal filed to this Tribunal under Section 35P of the Act. 2. It is an old case in which the notice to show cause was issued on 26-7-1972. On receipt of a police report in respect of the activities of M/s. T.M. Industries, and the information that the stolen aluminium conductors were stored in the godowns of the said manufacturer, their private records were scrutinised, and the stock of excisable goods available at the factory was checked. It was found that the party had manufactured and removed wires and cables from their licenced premises without pre-determination and without pre-payment of the Central Excise duty leviable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal against the said Order-in-Original, under Section 35 of the Act, to the Central Board of Excise and Customs (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'). The Board vide F. No. 194/127/77-CK V(A), dated 30-6-1980 confirmed the order of the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, and rejected the appeal (modifying the order with regard to duty demanded in respect of galvanised steel wires, and the amount of penalty imposed). 6. The party filed revision under Section 36 of the Act on 12-12-1980 against the above Order-in-Appeal No. 457 of 1980 passed by the Board, to the Government of India. 7. Under provisions as contained in Section 35P(2) of the Act, the proceedings pending before the Central Government stood transferred to the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. (J172) (SC)]. 12. Shri V.C. Bhartiya, the learned JDR submitted that the order passed by the Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs was clear and fully explained the situation. In the order of the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad also, all the issues had been discussed. He submitted that everything has been discussed in detail. He stated that no arguments had been advanced as to why there were excess goods. As regards the plea of rejected goods, he submitted that no records had been maintained by the party. It is also not correct to say that goods were square or rectangular conductors, and that this point was never in dispute. 13. In reply, the learned Advocate submitted that the Show Cause Notice was not specific and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e when the goods were recovered from different godowns and there was a specific information that stolen aluminium conductors were stored in the godowns of the appellants, the adjudicating authority should have analysed the case from that angle also. 18. Secondly, there is no finding that the excisable goods have been removed without payment of Central Excise duty. The allegation is that the excisable goods were intended to be removed. The goods were recovered from the godowns. They have not been removed. They were stored in the godowns. The ground on which it is alleged that the goods were intended to be removed have not been specified in the show cause notice, and have not been discussed in the adjudication order. 19. Thirdly, no contrav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of these records. They have submitted that the local police in connivance with the disgruntled and mischievous workers of the appellants firm had manipulated and created false evidence against them. 23. In such a situation where the very genuineness and authenticity of the private records is challenged by the assessee, it is for the revenue to establish that the private records on whose basis the allegations of evasion of Central Excise duty had been levelled, were genuine and authentic. In the case before us, we find that the adjudicating authority has brushed aside the plea of the appellants as "hypothetical defence" and "an after-thought". The adjudicating authority had stated that "the factory cannot be exonerated from their own liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condonable as observed by the Madras High Court in the case of Carborundum Universal Ltd. v. Union of India - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 403 (Madras). 28. It has been alleged that the record of clearances maintained by the appellants and those maintained for Bank Advance purposes, could not be re-conciled. 29. The records maintained for arranging finances from the Bank may or may not tally with the records maintained for excise purposes. There are specific provisions in the Central Excise Rules as at what stage and in what manner the excisable goods should be entered in the excise records. Banks are concerned with the security of the funds loaned by them to the manufacturer, and for that purpose they insist that the goods excisable or non-excisable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
