9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Shri Pankaj Malik, learned Chartered Accountant submitted that appellant was procuring non-duty paid clinker from manufacturers thereof under Chapter X Procedure and clearing the cement manufactured therefrom by grinding the same along with gypsum. In addition appellant was producing clinker in their own factory, the cement manufactured from which was being cleared on payment of the appropriate concessional duty leviable in terms of Notification No. 154/90. The duty leviable on cement manufactured from clinker procured from outside was Rs. 215/- PMT. Clearances were made by the appellant after the relevant date i.e. 28-1-1991 at the aforesaid rate of duty after the value of clearances from the appellant s factory had crossed Rs. 75 lak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir own production of clinker before the Investigating Officers and that the plea raised in this regard by them was an after-thought. This is contested by pointing out that even in the original statement recorded on 17-3-1991 the Managing Director had stated that the clinker received from outside and which was found short had been used in the manufacture of cement and that they had paid duty on such cement though such payment was of a lesser amount than what was correctly payable. 3. Resisting the arguments advanced in support of the appeal, Shri M. Ali, JDR stated that the relevant provisions in Chapter X required separate accounting of the material received under that Procedure. The charge against the appellant which has been sustained i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the procured material has been issued in the manufacture of cement which had been clandestinely removed. The Managing Director of the appellant had taken the stand at the earliest point of time that the clinker received from outside was taken for use by their labourers in the manufacture of cement and that the same had been treated, wrongly, as their own clinker for the purpose of discharging duty liability. He had admitted this mistake on their part and had deposited the difference in duty between the rates of duty leviable on the two varieties of cement, namely, one made from own production of clinker and the other from bought out clinker. The argument advanced that during the relevant period appellant had not received any clinker fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
