9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spun. An intelligence was received by the Central Excise officers that the appellants were suppressing the correct figures of production and clandestine removal of the goods. A surprise visit was paid to the factory premises on 9-9-1994. When the stock was physically verified a quantity of 16,079 numbers of spool of sewing threads of different varieties involving central excise duty of Rs. 2,09,116/- was found in excess. Shri K.L. Narang, General Manager in his statement admitted the excess and stated that this excess stock was transferred to the BSR due to shortage of space in the packing room. Being not satisfied with the explanation, the goods were seized. Scrutiny of the records revealed that during the period from 12-4-1994 to 23-4-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5) but no permission was granted to them. The Addl. Commissioner released 16,079 numbers of spools of sewing threads and dropped the demand of Rs. 2,36,750/- raised on account of Proforma Credit. He only imposed a nominal penalty of Rs. 1000/-. An appeal against this order was filed before the Commissioner (A) who held that the seizure effected by the appellants was legal and proper and confiscated the goods. 4. The Commissioner (A) on the question of availment of Proforma Credit observed that the respondents did not file any application before the receipt of the consignments in question as required under Rule 56A (2) nor did they file any application for condonation of delay. They also did not file D3 intimation. He, therefore held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled the benefit of proforma credit only after the Order-in-Original passed by the Addl. Collector was received; that there was nothing wrong in availment of Proforma credit once permission was granted. Ld. Consultant, therefore submits that the appellants had explained fully their case and prays that the appeal may be allowed. 7. Shri V.M. Oudhoji, ld. JDR submits that for the excess stock, the appellants have not been able to explain as to why the goods after being fully manufactured were not being recorded in the RG-1 register. He submits that accountal of the goods in the statutory records is mandatory and, therefore confiscation of the goods is justified. 8. On the question of availability of proforma credit, ld. JDR submits that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
