9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty was based on a finding that there was shortage of 5 drums of Resins in the Bonded Store Room (B.S.R.) and unaccounted quantity of 30 drums of plasticisers in the finishing room of the appellant s factory when the Central Excise Officers carried out surprise checks of the physical stock with the statutory RG. l Register. The plea was taken before the adjudicating authority that the five drums found short in the Bonded Store Room had been taken out on the day of the officers visit as there was some leak and the contents of these leaking drums had been transferred to five drums which formed part of the thirty drums found outside which were seized. As regards the drums found in the finishing section which had not been accounted for in the RG 1 Register, it was claimed that these were not fully manufactured as the contents had not been tested. The contentions were not accepted by the Additional Collector who went by the statement of the appellant s excise clerk, Shri Ashok Kumar Verma to the effect that the unaccounted goods constituted the production of 29th and 30th June, 1987 which could not be accounted for due to rush of work. It is also recorded in the order that the said cler ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore Room as their contents were found leaking and the contents were transferred to the good drums. He has also stated in his affidavit that as he was very apprehensive of his employer, he gave a statement to the excise officers as was dictated to him by them because those officers had told him that they would not book any case against his employer if he gave a statement to their liking. He had concluded his affidavit with the assertion that the spot statement given by him to the excise officers was under duress, coercion and blandishment. The affidavit is dated 27-10-1990 more than three years after he had given his statement at the time of stock verification conducted by the officers on 1-7-1987. Such belated retraction does not vitiate the original statement on the basis of which the Additional Collector observed that there was no satisfactory explanation given by the clerk. If, as claimed in the affidavit, there was any element of duress or coercion in the recording of his statement, the normal course for him would have been to disclaim that statement at the earliest possible opportunity and not wait for more than three years and file the affidavit only before the Tribunal. He d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o follow up work of sealing the filled up drums and marking them also. The explanation has been rejected by the Additional Collector and rightly so, according to us. We therefore, uphold the finding that the appellant was liable to pay the duty leviable on the shortage of goods found in the Bonded Store Room. The demand for duty made under Rule 9(2) is in order. 6. At this stage it becomes necessary to take note of the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the order demanding duty deserves to be set aside as no amount has been specified either in the show cause notice or even in the impugned order. Support has been sought for such a plea on a decision of the High Court of Bombay [1980 (6) E.L.T. 121]. It was held in the said case that :- (i) the notice must require the party to show cause to the proper officer why he should not pay a certain stated amount, (ii) the amount must be stated and manifestly specified in the notice itself, (iii) that the party must not be relegated to conjecture, speculations or calculations in order to ascertain the amount in respect of which the show cause notice is issued. (iv) the amount determined by the authority as paya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid that the petitioner cannot know as to how much duty is being demanded or in what manner to calculate the duty demanded of it. That apart, even if we hold that the impugned show cause did not comply with Rule 10 in all particulars meticulously it does not mean that the show cause notice will become void. We cannot read the requirement of Rule 10 to specify the amount to mean that if the specified amount is not mentioned in the show cause notice the same will become void as Lentin J of Bombay High Court has purported to hold. In our opinion to give such a strict, and we say so with respect, uncalled for construction to the requirement of specification of amount in the show cause under Rule 10 is neither warranted by any principles of law or any sound rule of interpretation. The whole purpose of show cause is to indicate the amount that is demanded of the petitioner. If instead of mentioning the amount the show cause indicates the difference between the duty demanded and the duty not paid that would be sufficient compliance. Even if there was a total silence to specify any amount all that this would mean would be that the petitioner would be entitled to ask the respondents to indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods were entered in the semi-finished column of RG 1 register as they had undergone that particular process and the remaining drums had not been entered in the RG 1 register as they had not undergone that particular process . The submissions are vague and it is not clear what the particular process referred to above was which had been completed for the contents of some drums but not for others. The fact is that the drums did not carry marks and numbers to identify the different drums. The practice of entering semi-finished goods in the RG 1 register allegedly on the advice of the Excise Officers has been mentioned only in the appeal but not raised in the defence plea before the Additional Collector. In the circumstances, the Additional Collector observed in his order that they had failed to correlate the 30 drums allegedly containing semi-finished goods with the 71 drums which also according to the appellant s claim contained goods which were not in fully manufactured and ready to despatch condition and that appellant had not clarified why 47 drums were entered in RG 1 when their contents were not yet finished goods. Accordingly, he had held that 30 drums containing plasticisers i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
