9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records also the stock was entered per sq. mtr. There was a difference. The appellants had explained that the two exercise books recovered were maintained by their contractors for claiming their wages and they did not reflect their correct production. The matter was adjudicated by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, who demanded a differential duty of Rs. 2,41,422/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. 2. I have heard Shri Punkaj Mullick, Advocate, for the appellants. The learned Advocate submitted that the appellants had explained that the exercise books recovered belonged to their contractors and that the differential was on account of breakages. The broken pieces known as crazy were not entered in their records as they did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the unit had maintained private records in the form of exercise books, production slips and ledgers. It was found that all the stocks maintained in their private records was not so entered in their excise records. 5. The appellants had explained that the difference related to the broken pieces and that the broken pieces were not accounted for as they did not attract any Central Excise duty. I find that the broken pieces were excisable but were enjoying exemption under Notification No. 16/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990. The marble in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process was ordinarily carried on with the aid of power and where the electromotive fore used exceeded 10 H.P. were dutiable under sub-heading No. 2504.21. Under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rble after sawing. I find that the exact measurements upto 2 decimal points had been recorded in the private records and nowhere it has been made out that the measurements written by them also included the measurements of the broken pieces. 9. Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account in so far as the demand of duty is concerned, I do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the adjudicating authority. The demand of differential duty of Rs. 2,41,422/- is confirmed. 10. However, taking into account the relevant facts and considerations of the case, I reduce the amount of penalty from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). 11. Thus, the demand of differential duty of Rs. 2,41,422/- is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
