9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le aluminium tubes manufactured by it between 1st June and 17th July, 1990 without payment of duty. A penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has also been imposed. 2. Advocate for the appellant does not deny that aluminium slugs were removed without reversing the credit. He however emphasises that they were removed to a job worker, for annealing and that the annealed sheets were received back. He contends that permission under sub-rule (2) to Rule 57F was received subsequently in November, 1991 for removing such slugs without payment of duty and that failure is therefore procedural. He places reliance in this Tribunal decision in Maschmeijer Aaromatics (India) Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1990 (46) E.L.T. 395. 3. The Departmental Representative contends t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permission duty should not be demanded. 5. The second issue for consideration in this appeal is the finding on clandestine removal of two consignments of tooth paste one on 1-6-1990 and on 17-7-1990 both to Vicco Laboratories Ltd. The basis for this allegation in the notice were entries made on these dates, in the "out material register". He has explained that this register is maintained by the security staff deployed at the gate of the factory in order to prevent removal of goods illicitly. The appellants explanation before the Collector was that the goods were in fact covered by gate passes No. 68 made on 31-5-1990 and 121 dated 16-7-1990 and that due to some difficulties goods could not be removed on these dates and were removed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other entries on 31-5-1990 for 160 boxes and 153 boxes which deals with the gate passes 66 and 67. Except gate pass 60 only 4 has been issued on 31-5-1990. This deals with entries in out material register. 7. There is a confusion as to whether we are dealing with gate pass 121 or 122 both on 16-7-1990. The Collector in his order refers to gate pass 121 which is the one cited before him by the assessee in the reply to the notice. In the copy of the reply to the appeal, the typed 121 figures have been corrected by hand to 122. In the appeal however the appellant specifically mentioned 122. Attempts to have the matter verified with reference to the case records have not been successful; the Deputy Commissioner, in reply to the comments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
