Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (1) TMI 359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lants were not under any excise control. Duty was however imposed with effect from 1-3-1994. The appellants got themselves registered and started claiming exemption of Rs. 30 lakhs under the S.S.I. Notification 1/93, dated 28-2-1993 (as amended). 1.2 On 6-8-1994, the Central Excise Officers visited the premises of the appellants factory. They found certain excesses and shortages on verification of the stock of goods. They also found that the goods of the appellants were lying in the adjacent premises of two other manufacturers namely M/s. Tirupati Trading Co. M/s. Sakseria Foundry Ltd. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued after investigation. It proposed recovery of Rs. 10,688/- as duty evaded on goods found short on the allegati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... actories which were not functioning at that time. He also submits that the demand in respect of goods manufactured and removed to the premises of the other two factories has been dropped. Therefore, the Assistant Collector has impliedly taken the stock found in the premises of the appellants as also in the premises of the other two factories to be the common stock of the appellants. He, therefore, submits that the shortage mentioned in Annexure A to the show cause notice found should be set off against the goods found in the premises of the other factories which have been admitted to belong to the appellants in the show cause notice itself. He, therefore, submits that shortage found in respect of C.I. Saddle A and C.I. Saddle B is accou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unting the same in the record by way of debit of duty etc. He submits that debit of duty for these three items cleared on the said invoices (available at pages 20 and 21 of the appeal papers) was found in original copy of RG 23 Part II Account in lead pencil. He further emphasises that in view of the fact that the invoices were duly pre-authenticated by Central Excise Officer, there can be no question of any intention to evade the duty in respect of those clearances. They did not make proper entries in the duplicate and triplicate RG 23 Part II because earlier the appellants were availing the benefit of exemption prior to 1-3-1994, and they were not maintaining any Central Excise records. They had removed duty paid goods for the first time .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es that steel ingots should be entered in RG 1 as soon as they come out of the mould whether they were in sound condition or in defective condition. Ld. SDR submits that the ratio of the said circular can be applied to cast iron products because the basic processes of manufacture of steel ingot and of the cast iron products are the same, i.e. casting by pouring molten iron or steel into moulds. Therefore, he submits that the goods have been rightly confiscated by the lower authorities and consequently, the redemption fine is sustainable. Penalty has also been rightly imposed. 4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. As regards the shortage mentioned in Annexure A , we agree with the submissions of the ld. Consu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tries in RG 1 was after inspection of the goods by the appellants themselves. Consequently, we hold that no excess stock was found. It has also not been rebutted that the goods had not been inspected by the appellants. The goods are not, therefore, liable to confiscation as held by the lower authorities. Consequently, redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the appellants is set-aside. 4.2 As regards the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the appellants, in view of our finding on the shortages as given above as also on the non-liability of the excess stock to confiscation, this has to be reduced, though not liable to bo set aside in view of the removal of the goods to other premises and our finding regarding shortage in C.I. Sole Plate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates