1999 (1) TMI 131

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... icated the matter confirmed the demand of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 5115.00 basic excise duty and Rs. 511.50 special excise duty. Redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 2 lakhs was imposed with regard to the goods seized. A redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed in lieu of confiscation of the truck. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on M/s. Samman Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on Shri Raghubir Singh, owner of the truck. Before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi only appeal by M/s. Samman Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. was filed. No appeal was filed by Shri Raghubir Singh, owner of the truck. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) confirmed the view taken by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rst not to account for the goods and then to transport the excess goods without payment of excise duty. He pleaded that a fair view has been taken by the lower authorities and there was no grounds for any further relief in the matter. 4. I have carefully considered the matter. On 18-2-1992, during the course of preventive Petrol Alloy Steel weighing 8525 Kgs. were found transported in the truck coming from the factory premises of the appellants company. The documents accompanying the consignment were for 6780 Kgs. only. No satisfactory explanation was given by the authorised signatory for the excess quantity being transported. On verification, the excise records were found to be written only upto 13-2-1992 and even for the quantity shown .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Accountant was also made responsible for the un-accounted stocks found on checking by the Central Excise Officers. The authorised signatory was present when the checks were exercised by the Central Excise Officers and he was admittedly responsible for maintaining excise records. Thus, the absence of the Accountant was only an excuse to justify the violation of the Law. The various pleas as taken by the appellants had been discussed by the Dy. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, who had adjudicated the matter. The pleas were found to be not tenable. He had confirmed the demand of duty as made in the show cause notice and had imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on M/s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X