9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on 29-9-1981 at about 17.00 hrs, the Central Excise Anti-Evasion Officers of Delhi Collectorate Hqrs., New Delhi intercepted one Tempo No. DHL-7845 loaded with Latex Foam Articles falling under Item No. 16A(1) of Central Excise Tariff, near the factory of M/s. Khanna Rubbers, 220, Piragarhi, Delhi. On demand, the driver of the said tempo produced one hand-written proforma Invoice No. 80-81/108, dated 29-9-1981 for Rs. 5,521.00 issued by M/s. Khanna Rubbers in favour of M/s. Goverdhan Dass and Sons, Rajouri Garden. In order to verify the genuineness of the document accompanying the consignment, the Central Excise Officers immediately visited the factory premises of M/s. Khanna Rubbers. The factory was found to be engaged in the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed on the ground that they had been removed from the place of manufacture without accountal in the simplified register and were not accompanied by a regular bill. In a follow-up action, the business premises/godown of the following firms were searched on 30-9-1981 and Latex Foam Articles of the total value of Rs. 33,000/- lying with them and manufactured in and removed from the factory of M/s. Khanna Rubbers without proper accountal in the Daily Stock Account Register were placed under seizure, since the said firms could not produce any document showing the lawful procurement of the same : - (i) M/s. Khanna Foam Sales, 341, Panchkuin Road, New Delhi. Rs.2,550.00 (ii) M/s. Gopal Narain Sons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d those removed in the intercepted tempo as well as those seized on 30-9-1981 from the business premises godown of M/s. Khanna Foam Sales and M/s. Gopal Narain Sons, of the total value of Rs. 80,922/- are liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q ibid. Besides, seized tempo No. DHL-7845 valued at Rs. 45,000/- approx. used in the transportation of contraband excisable goods, which was released to M/s. Khanna Rubbers provisionally on 1-3-1982 on their execution of E-11(Sec.) Bond of the face value of Rs. 45,000/- alongwith security of Rs. 5,000/- is also liable to confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,49,175.72 (BED Rs. 2,37,310.21 and SED Rs. 11,865.51) involved on the clearan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants M/s. Khanna Rubbers on latex foam articles valued at Rs. 5,75,297.50. Further he ordered for confiscation of latex foam articles of the total value of Rs. 80,922.00 lying in stock at the premises of M/s. Khanna Rubbers, M/s. Khanna Foam Sales and M/s. Gopal Narain Sons and the goods found in transit on 29-9-1981. However, he gave option to appellants M/s. Khanna Rubbers to redeem the goods on redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/-. 6. Shri L.P. Asthana, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that appellants M/s. Khanna Rubbers were manufacturers of latex foam articles and were availing benefit of Notification No. 80/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 as their clearances were less than Rs. 7.5 lakhs in a year. They were a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme for manufacture of latex foam published by the Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries as additional evidence to show that appellant s unit had no capacity to manufacture latex foam articles of a value of Rs. 13,25,297.50 as held by the Collector. He submitted in the facts and circumstances, the department has no case either for demanding duty or for taking penal action. 7. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that show cause notice was issued within six months from the date of seizure and further period of limitation is not applicable as the issue relates to offence. He submitted that belated retracted statement of Vijay Narain Khanna was under legal advice and since it was an afterthought, same cannot be taken cognisan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production/clearance of latex foam articles for the period of 93 days i.e., for a quarter cannot be taken as basis for enhancing the entire period proportionately as it was argued on behalf of the appellants. There is also some force in the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for the appellants with reference to time bar since the demand related to the production of goods other than goods seized in the transit and in the absence of mention of Section 11A or of suppression as such in the show cause notice to invoke larger period. In view of discrepancies and sufficient evidence is not forthcoming to show that value of latex foam articles exceeding exemption limit has been produced and cleared during the period in question, we are giving be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
