9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the party to the Government Account. 2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of fabrics at the factory in the State of Rajasthan, was filing price lists from time to time and clearing goods on payment of duty on approved prices. Anti Evasion Wing of the Department visited the premises of the appellant on 26-6-1989 and scrutinised the records. It was found that fabrics cleared by the appellant in favour of M/s. Mehta Distributors of Bangalore were never sent to the consignee but were sent directly to the duty paid godown of the appellant in the State of Rajasthan and resold at higher prices. Enquiry showed that the fabrics were not at all meant to be sent to M/s. Mehta Distributors of Bangalore and the exercise was undertaken with an in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficient to furnish all particulars and calculation. Calculations made till then showed that differential duty of Rs. 13,546.83 was payable and this was deposited on 1-6-1989 without prejudice to the right to claim excess duty paid amounting to Rs. 5,088/-. In respect of the details for the remaining period, the appellant indicated that detailed scrutiny was being carried out. It was obviously in pursuance of such detailed scrutiny that payments of differential duty were made on subsequent days in June 1989. In the light of the contents of this letter, Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there was nothing mala fide in the action of the appellant, and goods intended for M/s. Mehta Distributors, Bangalore were forwarded to them bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted on telephone. It would also be useful to refer to the statement given by Shri K.K. Bagla, Vice President (Marketing) of the appellant on 16-8-1989 to the effect that the goods had been handed over to the transporter at Alwar and on receipt of telephonic message from Bangalore agent regarding non-despatch of the goods the same were lifted from there and sent to duty paid godown for ultimate resale. What we have indicated above would show that the appellant cannot be said to have a consistent case in this regard. It is difficult to believe that goods sent to the transporters were diverted on some telephonic instructions from the agent. It is also not clear that the telephonic instruction was based on instruction by Mehta Distributors expr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
