9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m, viz. Vijay Kumar, who admitted the shortage as found by the officers. The Central Excise duty on 12 tractor rims and that on the 143 crane rims found short, amounting to Rs. 324/-and Rs. 30,888/- respectively, were paid on the same day by way of appropriate debits in the appellants RG-23A Part II. The Department proposed to confirm such duty and to impose penalty on the appellants on the ground of alleged contravention of Central Excise Rules. They alleged that the goods found short had been removed clandestinely without payment of Central Excise duty and without following Central Excise procedure as laid down by the relevant Rules. The appellants contested the allegations of the Department contained in the show cause notice. The dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e veracity of the facts pleaded by the appellants in the fax message and the letter. He submits that the wheel rims were subsequently painted and removed on payment of duty and thereby the appellants paid duty on the same goods twice. Learned Advocate has, in support of the appellants plea for a reverification by the Department, relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Triveni Engineering Works v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad [2000 (116) E.L.T. 252 (T)]. Learned Advocate contends that the order passed by the adjudicating authority without considering the appellants' request for reverification and also the order of the lower appellate authority upholding the order of adjudication cannot be sustained. He prays for allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not aware of the Central Excise matters. It was Shri Vijay Kumar himself who debited the duty amount in the RG-23 register. However, there was no explanation before the adjudicating authority by way of any affidavit from Shri Vijay Kumar. An affidavit was given by his co-partner who was away from the factory at the time of the visit of the officers. This affidavit was also considered by the adjudicating authority while coming to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the appellants was not acceptable. The case relied on by the learned Advocate has been persued by me. In that case, shortage of certain goods had been noted by the officers who visited the appellants' factory. The appellants had raised an objection to the effect that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
