9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 373/92-A, dated 27-7-1992 wherein the Tribunal had directed the Collector to take on record fresh evidence produced by the respondents herein and adjudicate the allegation regarding clandestine production and removal of the goods which were supplied by the respondents to various Government authorities. 3. Based on certain inspection report of the purchasing Government Organisations, allegation had been made against the respondent that they had produced and cleared goods in excess of the quantity accounted in the Central Excise documents. The respondent's submission was that the goods in question were mostly supplied to Government authorities and that the inspection reports related to goods ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production and removal the same should be adjudicated based on the totality of evidence. A particular document issued by a particular Department cannot be treated as conclusive or sacrosanct when its authority is challenged by several other credible materials. We are, therefore, not able to find any merit in this submission made in the appeal. Similarly, it has been submitted in the appeal that the Collector had allowed introduction of fresh evidence (RG 1) in the de novo adjudication. RG 1 registers are prescribed statutory Central Excise Records. They should have been considered at the investigation stage itself and notice should not have been issued without taking these statutory documents into account. Therefore, the Collector was not g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and has to be rejected. 7. The third ground taken in the appeal is that the respondent was claiming deduction towards freight more than actuals. This objection is made based on certain quotations obtained by the Central Excise authorities regarding rate of transport. Those quotations showed Rs. 300 per trip, while respondent was paying Rs. 1050. Respondent had explained this in the adjudication proceedings, as the result of the special requirement of the goods and the contractual obligation, mainly, the pipes had to be supplied at the places where they were to be laid. Collector had taken note of this fact and had felt that the objection raised is not sustainable. We find no reason to fault this finding. So the appeal on this ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
