9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... val of the goods mentioned therein was 9.25 AM and since there was inordinate delay in transporting the goods the truck was intercepted and the driver was questioned. He informed that he earlier carried another consignment of 135 ingots from Aditya to M/s. Pioneer Re-rolling Mills and the supervisor of Aditya Steel Industries advised him to avoid making entries at the Check post as the same set of papers were to be used for despatch of another consignment and when he reached M/s. Pioneer Steel Re-rolling Mills, 35 ingots were found defective and were returned and he carried the same back to M/s. Aditya Steel Industries from where another load of 135 ingots was carried in his truck which was intercepted by the officers. As a follow-up action the officers searched the premises of both M/s. Aditya Steel Industries and the Pioneer Steel Re-rolling Mills and recorded statements from Raghuvir Singh Supervisor of Aditya Steel Industries, Lakhi Prasad, Manager of Aditya,. M. Gupta, Managing Partner of Aditya, M.G. Murtaza, Managing Partner of M/s. Pioneer Steel Re-rolling Mills. It is in these circumstances proceedings were initiated against the appellants which resulted in the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ingots and that he did not get transit passes when he was taking empty lorry to Medchal in the morning. Regarding the indication on the left side of the weighment slip given second time, he stated that for the second load of 135 pieces of M.S. Ingots, he did not have any other document except weighment slip. 3. Raghuvir Singh, Supervisor of Aditya in his statement dated 28-6-1993 stated that on 27-6-1993 one consignment of M.S. Ingots weighing 10.300 MTs was cleared at 9.25 AM under Gate pass No. 184, dated 27-6-1993. Shri Lakhi Prasad Manager of Aditya in his statement dated 28-6-1993 stated that he despatched 135 ingots at 9.25 AM on payment of central excise duty vide gate pass No. 184 on 27-6-1993 to Pioneer and the same was unloaded at Pioneer and that the driver had brought back gate pass No. 184 alongwith the vehicle and the way bill No. 179 which was issued for 135 ingots and that he again despatched one more consignment of 135 ingots under the cover of the same gate pass and way bill around 4.45 PM on 27-6-1993 and they have not paid any duty on the second trip. Shri Matadeen Gupta, Managing Director of Aditya in his statement stated that on perusal of three weighment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleaded that these 3 transport passes were issued by 3 different transit points for one and same transaction. Further it was submitted that there was no corroboration of the statement of Ikram, the driver about the advice given by the supervisor i.e. to avoid the check post. It was submitted that the statements of Lakhi Prasad, Manager of Aditya Steel Industries and Murtaza, Managing Partner of M/s. Pioneer are not inconsistent with the plea of innocence and the learned lower authority has not appreciated the evidence properly. 6. Ikram, the driver has urged in his appeal memorandum that the ingots which were sent in the morning were returned as such and he had taken the same back to M/s. Pioneer from Aditya. It is urged that it is not correct to say that he transported only 35 ingots as noted by the officers. He pleaded that he has not done anything to warrant levy of penalty on him. 7. Lakhi Prasad in his appeal memorandum has urged that there was no shortage as such found in the factory and the learned Collector has not appreciated the evidence correctly while only one consignment was cleared from the factory. He has further pleaded that there is no corroboration of the driv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eded that no information was elicited by the authorities. He however, pleaded that the statements of the various persons would show that three consignments of the various persons would show that three consignments were actually despatched from M/s. Aditya. He however, pointed out that Murtaza, Managing Partner of M/s. Aditya after seeing the documents has stated that three consignments appears to have been cleared from M/s. Aditya. He however conceded that no definite information was obtained from anybody. He pleaded that the appellants had been disregarding the law and indulging in clandestine removal of the goods from Aditya to other unit and inasmuch as consignments had been removed without payment of duty from Aditya, and there had been receipt of the goods by M/s. Pioneer, with the knowledge of the persons who were incharge of the goods, the goods have been rightly held to be confiscable, besides the truck and the appellants are also liable to penalty as held by the lower authority. 9. I have considered the pleas made in the appeal memorandums and also the pleas made by the learned DR for the department. I observe that Driver Ikram has given detailed statement setting out fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be given to the appellants and duty in respect of the same cannot be demanded from Aditya. 10. So far as imposition of penalty is concerned, I find that the statements of Raghuvir Singh of Pioneer Steel Re-rolling Mills and Driver Mohd. Ikram have to be taken to be voluntary and there have been no retraction of their statements. They have not probabilised that there was any coercion or threat. In view of this, I hold that they are liable to penalty and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- cannot be considered as excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. So far as redemption fine of [Rs.] 8,000 on the truck is concerned, the truck was admittedly used for clandestine removal of the goods and therefore, truck is liable to confiscation. However, the redemption fine on the truck is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine on the goods which are confiscable as held by the lower authority and which I agree with for the reasons set out in his order cannot be considered excessive and the same is confirmed in entirely. So far as imposition of penalty on Lakhi Prasad is concerned, he was the Manager of Aditya and he was res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
