9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not accounted for in the statutory records, with option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants hold Central Excise registration for manufacture of aluminium castings/parts of textile machinery falling under Chapters 84 and 90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On a visit of the officers to the factory on 31-8-1993, a substantial quantity of unaccounted finished aluminium castings were found. Further scrap generated in the appellants unit in the shape of Runners, Risers etc. were also found unaccounted. In addition, the appellants were found to have moved semi-finished goods for electro-plasting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 217/86 is remanded to the Adjudicating authority for decision on merits. A reading of the Notification shows that aluminium scrap which has been recycled by the appellants falls under Chapter 76 which is one of the Chapters enumerated in the table annexed to the Notification and the final products of the appellants fall under Chapters 84 to 90 which are also Chapters enumerated in the table to the Notification. However, since sufficient material is not available on record, it is not possible to render a finding on the availability of this notification to the appellants and the issue is therefore, remanded to the Adjudicating authority. 5. Regarding the demand of duty on iron and steel scrap, there is no dispute that these were not accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to confiscation even when they are not accounted for in the statutory records. Therefore, confiscation of this aluminium scrap is upheld. 7. As regards the penalty, since the duty demand of Rs. 1,29,345/- has been set aside as seen from Para 4 of the order, the penalty requires to be reduced and accordingly reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. 8. The learned Counsel s submission that the demand is barred by limitation is not tenable since, as rightly contended by the learned DR, the appellants had not disclosed the fact of production of scrap and clearance of the same without payment of duty. The learned Counsel submits that it is impossible for the department not to have known that scrap had arisen in the course of the manufacture of the final pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
