9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduction and clearance in the statutory records, thus suppressing the facts with intent to evade payment of duty. It was also alleged that the above facts were discovered on scrutiny of records. Revenue found that the appellant manufactured and cleared 208 ingot moulds to Indian Iron Steel Co. and other agencies, thereby evading duty to the tune of Rs. 11,49,683.47. The appellant was, therefore, asked to show cause as to why the aforesaid duty be not recovered under Rule 9(2) and why a penalty be not imposed upon it under Rule 173Q. 1.2 On adjudication, after consideration of the reply to show cause notice and the submissions during personal hearing, the Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur, has confirmed a differential duty of Rs. 5,99, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, it was realised that duty was required to be paid. Accordingly, the appellant paid on such scrap @ Rs. 80/- per M.T. under Tariff Heading 7203.10. The aforesaid was done admittedly without having filed, and getting approval of, classification list for the said goods. 2.3 Ld. consultant has further urged that the adjudicating authority has erred in classifying the scrapped/defective ingot moulds under Tariff Heading 8454.00 and not under 7203.10/7204.10. It is not denied that the ingot moulds were sold as scrap and at a far lower value than O.K. ingot moulds would have fetched. This fact by itself, submits the ld. Consultant, proves that the ingot moulds were defective and were scrap and waste of iron and steel. He draws attention to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumed to be defective, they do not cease to ingot moulds for that reasons unless it is proved that such ingot moulds were fit only for recovery of metal to treat them as `waste and scrap in terms of the definition of that expression. No evidence whatsoever has been produced by the appellant to prove that the ingot moulds were defective to the extent of being fit only for recovery of metal. Drawing attention to the evidence at pages 19 to 21 of the appeal papers relied upon by the appellants, ld. JDR points out that except the heading of the statements indicating rejected/scrap C.I. ingot mould , these do not show that these were sold as scrap , to whom these were sold whether to scrap dealers or some other persons, and the prices at whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact of suppression of removal of goods without payment of duty and limitation of five years would be available from the date of removal of the goods when the duty ought to have been paid. Aforesaid suppression gets compounded by the fact that the appellant has not been able to prove by any evidence that the `goods removed were `scrap / defective ingot moulds. He, therefore, submits that limitation of five years has been rightly invoked. 4.1 We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We are of the view that in the face of the adjudicating authority s finding about lack of any evidence to the effect that goods in question were cleared as scrap, the appellant was duty bound to rebut the said finding on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
