9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riff. On 14-8-1983 Superintendent paid a surprise visit and verified the statutory records RG1, GPs and production reports of appellant, and noticed that entries of production and clearance was erased, overwritten and less production and clearance were shown. They have cleared metal containers without payment of duty, and contravened Rule 9(1) read with Rules 523A, 53, 173G of Central Excise Rules, show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of Central Excise duty under proviso (1) to Section 11 A of Central Excise Act, and imposing penalty under Rule 226, 173Q of the above Rules. Appellant replied on 4-11-1985 contending that there were only clerical mistakes and excisable goods were manufactured and cleared on payment of excise duty. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason. As per page 6 of impugned order, clandestine removal is negated. As per annexure 'B' to show cause notice, removal is made on payment of duty. Only Rs. 2,000/- penalty is fixed under Rule 226. How Rs. 40.000/- was imposed is not clear. Synopsis is also filed. The learned JDR Sri K.M. Patwan has urged there is discrepancy in all the entry in annexure 'B' to show cause notice. Serial No. 11 and 15 are clear. There is erasure and over writing. As per page 7 of impugned order there is no clerical error. In the reply it is urged that there is no fraud or misrepresentation. Mistakes are pointed out in records. The matter may be remanded to verify when goods left and where gone, and also for reconciliation of errors. Order No. E/1298/97 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lted either in removal of excisable goods without payment of duty or suppression of production and clearance have also not been satisfactorily accounted for in statutory factory records. Details of production delivery challans, quantity removed etc., are shown in Annexure 'B' to the show cause notice. In Para 1 and 2 of notice it is alleged that duty of excise amounting to Rs. 61,639.08 (basic Rs. 58703.89 and Special Rs. 2935.19) has not been levied or paid or has been short levied as specified in Annexure 'A' and 'B' and it is recoverable from the appellant under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, and appellant has also contravened the provisions of Rule 9(1), read with Rule 52A, 53, 173G of Central Excise Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss production and clearance were shown in the statutory record, with reference to proviso to clause (I) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, the contention of the appellant can not be accepted. 6. The appellant in the appeal memorandum has attacked the above finding in the grounds of appeal No.6 to 9 that on 18-8-1983 when the Superintendent paid surprise visit and verified statutory records and seized them, the department required knowledge about the functioning of the appellant's factory, and notice is issued beyond 6 months from that date, and it is time-barred under Section 11A of Central Excise Act. There was no question of suppression of facts on the part of the appellant with an intention to evade payment of duty. Invoking larger p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
