9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized at Belgam were liable for confiscation but were not available. He, therefore appropriated from security furnished by the appellants. He also vacated the seizure made at 25 dealers premises and the seizure of four trucks, 3 at Anand and one at Belgaum. He also imposed a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs on the appellants. Being aggrieved by this order, the captioned appeal has been filed. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that an information was received that the appellants were clearing figured and sheet glasses of higher thickness after paying duty at lower thickness. The Officers of Central Excise intercepted 3 trucks loaded with figured glasses. One truck was going to Indore and carried 30 crates and total 720 sheets covered by GP-1 No. 968, dated 27-8-1983 and debit Note No. R-80/Fig/340/83. The variety shown was pinhead 2.2 mm thickness and when the thickness was measured by the Asst. Chemical Examiner, the measurement came to 3.13, 2.79, 3.28, 3.39, 2.80, 2.79, 2.78 and 3.12. Average mean was 3.0 mm. As the thickness ascertained was more than declared 2.2 mm thickness, the 30 crates valued at Rs. 3,394.54 was seized. 3. The other truck was found loaded with reeded varie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of clearance, the thickness was measured at the time of packing. It was contended that if the glass as it comes out of machine and if it is subsequently cut into several pieces then each piece will be having different thickness. It was contended that the formula adopted by the department was wrong. It was pointed out further that the formula is wrong because it takes into account the thickness of the glass on the edge which is always cut and thrown and only balance remaining is cut and packed. After careful consideration of the submissions made, the Collector has held as indicated above. 6. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate submits that the demand in the instant case is for the period from 1-3-1982 to 31-8-1983; that the SCN was issued on 20-2-1984. He submits that prior to 1-3-1982 duty on glass was on thickness basis. He submits that however from 1-3-1982 the duty became payable on ad valorem basis and thickness basis. He submits that the department has taken higher thickness. He submits that allowance of 3 mm and 4 mm, the minimum is to be given if this allowance is given, thickness comes to more or less what has been declared by them. 7. Ld. Counsel submits that the Machine P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it has been [alleged] that statement about thickness of glass was vague in the CL. He submits that nothing prevented the department to examine the CL and any other documents or process of manufacture before approving it. He, therefore submits that even on limitation, the appellants have strong case in their favour and the demand is time barred. 10. Shri R.S. Sangia, ld. JDR submits that the date 1-3-1982 is a dividing date. He submits that the case is based not only on thickness of glass shown in the machine performance reports but is based on seizures effected from different godowns in the factory premises or in the branch office of the appellants and from the premises of the dealers. He submits that actual measurement taken on glass in these different premises showed that the thickness declared was much less than the actual thickness of glass found on measurement. 11. Ld. JDR submits that Shri J. Singh, Technologist of the appellant firm in his statement stated that the figures reported in machine performance reports were actual production of glass of different variety. He submits that since the glass technologist confirmed that the machine performance report showed actual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by them was correct thickness. 16. Second point that was argued before us was computation of quantity from the machine performance report. It was argued by the appellants that the glass is fragile item; that the breakage occurred at each stage and that computing production of glass from the machine performance report was not correct. Revenue, however, relied on the statement of glass technologist of the appellants who stated that the actual production of glass was recorded in the machine performance report. Having regard to the fact that the machine performance report was being prepared and signed by the glass technologist who has confirmed that the figures recorded in the machine performance report are the figures of actual figured glass produced, we hold that the figures have correctly been taken for computing the quantity of glass manufactured. 17. Another point that was agitated before us was on limitation. It was pointed out that the SCN was issued on 20-2-1984 for the period 1-3-1982 to 31-8-1983. The contention of the assessee was that they had filed CL which was approved. The contention of the Revenue that the vague declaration as to the thickness was given in the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
