9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise licence No. AR III/14/83 and AR III/Ch.39/8/87. The said units were availing Modvat facility under Rule 57A and holding permission under Rule 57F(2) at the job worker s premises viz. M/s. Polymer Alloys. 2. During the course of checking by the staff of the Central Excise office, the stock of finished and semi-finished goods and inputs in the premises of M/s. Plasticolour Corporation and Polymer Alloys it was noticed that there were differences in physical stock and statutory records. The finished goods i.e.. black sheating compound 8387.9 kgs duly packed in HDPE bags ready for delivery were also lying in finishing room of M/s. Plasticolour Corporation was not accounted for in any Central Excise records. The party had indulged in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs Polymer Alloys as he held that it was not so found with them. The other plea in this regard that the thermoplastic material was used up in production of 18-9-1988 and 19-9-1988 was also rejected for want of substantiation. A quantity of 634 kg HDPE was also found liable to duty as this quantity has been accepted as not traceable. The Addl. Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on appellants Plastic Colour Corporation under Section 173Q of Central Excise Rules. On seized goods he appropriated amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards redemption fine. 5. As regards appellants Polymer Alloys the Addl. Commissioner demanded duty on 346 kg of waste and further ordered they should account for the other material and either pay duty or return th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ancy, he had accepted it and had not demanded duty. Duty has been demanded rightly on such quantity of the material for which the explanation given was not substantiated by evidence. So far as the job worker appellant is concerned, they have been only asked to either pay duty or send the material back to the other appellants. 7. On a careful examination of the rival contentions it is seen that the appellants themselves are not seriously pressing their case against the demand for duty on 36.1 kg of black plastic granule waste reported to have been thrown away, as submitted before us by the ld. Counsel. 8. Apart from that, it is seen that the demand of duty on HDPE 1587 kg is on the ground that equal quantity was not found with Polymer Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E to job worker, which is outside purview of permission under Rule 57F(2) altogether. 8. Except for the above, the duty demand on other counts has to be upheld in respect of appellants Plasticolour Corpn. as we see no ground to fault the reasoning of the Addl. Commissioner. However, the penalty on this appellant is, in the circumstances of the case, reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. (Rupees Five thousand only). 9. So far as appellants Polymer Alloys are concerned, having regard to their role as job worker for the other appellants, and the nature of the offence vis-a-vis this unit, the penalty on them is also reduced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only. 10. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
