9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious kinds falling under Chapter Heading 6401.91 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. On the basis of intelligence report the factory premises of the appellants was visited by Central Excise Officers on 29-10-1993. They inspected the statutory as well as private records of the appellants. On the basis of the verification of the records the officers found that there was discrepancy in the matter of entries in RG 1 Register. On the basis of the information collected and on the basis of statements given by the partners of the firm a Show Cause Notice was issued on 22-4-1994 alleging attempted clandestine removal of 4,187 pairs of PVC soles (with leather insert), clearance of 389 pairs of PVC soles without GP1s and production of 17,484 pairs of PV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e diary recovered from the possession of Shri V.N. Khemka one of the partners the Collector found that during the period from 1-10-1993 to 28-10-1993, out of 57,336 pairs of PVC soles (with leather inserts) only 3,335 pairs were entered in the RG 1 Register. Likewise out of 29,193 pairs of PVC soles manufactured and soles shown in the private diary only 11,709 pairs have been entered in the RG 1 Register. Further, as against 13,996 pairs of full leather shown in the private diary, 37,240 pairs have been shown in the RG 1 Register. Collector, therefore, held that 54,001 pairs of PVC soles (with leather inserts) valued at Rs. 32,40,060/- at the rate of Rs. 60/- per pair and 17,484 pairs of PVC soles valued at Rs. 5,94,456 at the rate of Rs. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the statements relied on by the Collector were inadmissible in evidence as they were coercively extracted. Further, ld. Counsel also submitted that the entries in the private diary had neither been authenticated nor verified by any responsible person from the appellants side. He further submitted that the entire proceedings were vitiated by the action of the officers who conducted the inspection and who had seized the stock and the records merely on the basis of marginal or minor discrepancies on the part of the appellants. Summing up the arguments ld. Counsel stated that it was for the Department who prove by adequate evidence any allegation of clandestine removal which they had not been able to do in the present case and, therefore, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which had been duly assessed and, therefore, there cannot be any duty demand and the duty already paid on the clearances made by the appellants during the relevant period. On a perusal of Annexures 16 to 18 to the memo-of-appeal at pages 58 to 75, it is observed that the said annexure purports to show a summary of the stock for the period April to September 1993 giving details of various items of purchase, production wastage etc. These are neither authenticated nor verified. They appear to be entirely one sided documents. It is also not clear whether the said documents were placed before the Adjudicating Authority at the time of proceedings before him. There is also no prayer in the memo-of-appeal for remanding the case for examination of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
