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

1999 (8) TMI 507

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... were not licensed under the Central Excise law nor had they filed any declaration claiming the benefit of any Notification. On receipt of intelligence, their premises were searched. It was found that in a majority of cases, the goods were delivered under kachha delivery challan . Goods totally valued at Rs. 7,61,406/- were seized. Accounts of the manufacturers were also seized. Statements of concerned partners and buyers were recorded. At the conclusion of the investigations, show cause notice dated 19-4-1993 was issued. It was alleged that duty amounting to Rs. 30,30,170/- was short levied on account of goods clandestinely cleared by M/s. Vardhaman Polymer Industries. It was alleged that the seized goods were liable to confiscation. M/s. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sented by Shri A.V. Phadnis alongwith Shri G.C. Biradar, Advocates. The partners of Shri Vardhaman Polymer Industries vis. P.D. Jain and A.D. Jain were represented by Shri Biradar. Shri Biradar also represented the buyers Shri Rajesh O. Mehta, Sampatraj D. Jain and J.N. Agarwal. Shri Gursharan Singh, Consultant was appearing for S/Shri A.D. Dagh, Jayantilal A. Shah (Aidalmallji) and Nemi Devdar. Shri K.V. Sahashrabudhe, Consultant represented Shri Vinod Kumar Agrawal. Revenue was represented by Shri K.L. Ramtake, JDR. 5. On behalf of M/s. Vardhaman Polymer Industries Shri Phadnis submits that out of the 66 buyers who purchased the goods manufactured by M/s. Vardhaman Polymer Industries, the department had questioned only 19 persons. He su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a Engineering Works v. CCE [1998 (98) E.L.T. 659]. He submits that the payment of penalty to the department would cause undue hardship but conceeds that his clients have not filed affidavit on record to this effect. 7. Arguing for the buyers, Shri Biradar submits that Shri Sampatraj Jain was not a noticee in this show cause notice at all, although he has filed reply and that he has been penalised. As regards Shri Agarwal and Shri Rajesh O. Mehta, he has stated that they had denied having received any goods from M/s. Vardhaman Polymer Industries. 8. Shri Gursharan Singh states that his client Jayantilal A. Shah had refused having received any goods from M/s. Vardhaman and Shri A.D. Dagh had received the goods and had made payment under c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the electricity consumed would not justified this amount of production. We have also heard his claim on the inadequacy of the investigation and the denial of the fact of purchase by certain buyers. In our opinion, at this stage of prima facie consideration, this argument cannot be considered. Whether various submissions made by the applicants were considered by the ld. Commissioner is also a point to be taken up at the time of final hearing of the case. It is not that the accounts on which the estimates were made were not maintained by the manufacturers. If it is the claim that the kachha invoices were substitued by the applicants, then the contra entry should exist in the register showing clearance under the kachha receipts. In the alte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rendering them liable to penalties. In certain cases, some buyers have refused to have purchased any goods from M/s. Vardhaman Polymer Industries. After recounting this submission, the Commissioner has merely proceded to impose penalties upon them. We also take cognizance of the submissions made on behalf of the buyers. For sustaining penalty under Rule 209A, it is necessary to establish that the persons so made liable had dealt with certain goods in the knowledge or in the reasonable belief that the goods were liable to confiscation. In the absence of such evidence, penalty cannot be justified. We, therefore, grant unconditional stay and waiver of the penalty imposed upon the buyers. 14. Compliance report on 10-11-1999. - - TaxTMI - T .....

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