Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (8) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 2. The appellants, who are manufacturers of HDPE/PP woven fabrics (laminated or unlaminated), sacks and bags, were served with a show cause notice by the Collector, alleging that physical verification of goods by the Officers of Central Excise had shown that 3,90,681 numbers of HDPE/PP woven bags and 2,500 Nos. multi-layer bags had not been accounted by the Appellants in their RG 1 Register. It also alleged shortage of 57,500 HDPE/PP woven bags of different sizes, apart from non-accountal of 1,11,650 kgs. of HDPE granules. The show cause notice asked the appellants to show cause why the said goods seized during the visit of the Officers on 13-1-1992 should not be confiscated and why other appropriate action under various provisions of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yer bags showed 19,000 as the closing balance for the period ending on 31-12-1991. This had been carried forward till 9-1-1992 when the closing balance was shown as `NIL . The Collector, therefore, rejected the plea of the Appellants that a mistake had occurred due to clerical oversight. The Collector held that it was not possible to believe that such huge quantity of multi-layer bags which were present in the Storeroom from 1-1-1992 to 9-1-1992 were not noticed by the person who was incharge of making entries in the RG 1 Register. As regards shortage of 57,500 Nos. HDPE/PP woven bags, the Collector observed that neither the Managing Director nor the Authorised Signatory was in a position to give any explanation for the shortage at the time .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re still available for verification for the reason that it was not possible to identify the said 500 bags as the goods which were not in stock at the time of physical verification and, therefore, duty was liable to be paid on the said goods. 4. In the memorandum of appeal filed before the Tribunal and in the submissions made by Shri R. Santhanam, ld. Advocate for the appellants, the appellants have strongly contended that the shortages alleged in the show cause notice and confirmed by the Collector were only technical in nature and the goods had actually been cleared on GP 1s after payment of duty and the only fault of the appellants was that they were not entered in the RG 1 Register due to the concerned clerk being on leave on the date .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e relevant entry of which had also been submitted at the time of the adjudicating proceedings before the Collector. The Collector had chosen to ignore the evidence as some afterthought. Summing up the arguments, the ld. Advocate submitted that there is evidence of complete non-application of mind by the Collector in the impugned order since he had rejected all the evidence produced by the appellants as a mere afterthought without considering the genuine grounds pleaded by the Appellants. As regards the inability of the Managing Director to give satisfactory answers to the queries of the officers, the ld. Advocate submitted that in the absence of concerned personnel dealing with accounting of the production, the Managing Director was also no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the RG 1 Register. They could also not explain a shortage of 57,500 Nos. of HDPE/PP woven bags of different sizes apart from a stock of 1,11,650 kgs. of HDPE granules lying in the Storeroom unaccounted for in the Stock Register showing NIL balance. The appellants have not been able to show any material to rebut the findings of the Collector as regards his finding that the original RG 1 Register relating to the production before 13-1-1992 had not been maintained, and in the absence of any proof that the copies of the pages produced at the time of reply to the show cause notice and during the proceedings were not records which were subsequently made, we do not find any force in the Appellants contention that the Collector had not given sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates