9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and a sum of Rs. 19,49,443.00 was claimed under Rule 192 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(1) of the Act. Adjudicating authority further confiscated 17,368 parts which go into the production of IC engines valued at Rs. 3,82,532.00 under Rule 196 read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but gave option to redeem it on payment of fine of Rs. 20,000.00. A penalty of Rs. 30,000.00 has also been imposed on the manufacturer. All these liability and penalty have been imposed as per the said order-in-original No. 25/95 dated 2-5-1995 pursuant to the facts noted by the Central Excise officers who conducted surprise visit of the premises on 11-5-1993 to 14-5-1993. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l are that the variation in the stock found by the adjudicating authority is not correct, that the shortage found by the authorities was as a consequence of their failure to take note of the stock in the main godown and that was present in the receipt room. Regarding the excess, her argument is that those goods were purchased from other manufacturers on payment of duty and that they have not got the effect of defeating the claims of the Revenue. 5. At the time of the surprise visit on 11-5-1993 and 12-5-1993, the manufacturer had a specific case that their computer was not properly functioning and so the correct position of stock was not available. It is also stated that the correct position regarding the stock can be made available on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the computerised OLTP system had broken down for about three weeks effective from 30th April, 1993 is not acceptable and is afterthought because this fact was not deposed before the Central Excise officers at the time of their visit in their factory on 11-5-1993 and 12-5-1993. From this statement made by the adjudicating authority it appears that he did not go through the relevant documents prepared by the officers who conducted the surprise inspection on 11-5-1993 to 14-5-1993 and the statements recorded by them in the course of that inspection. This circumstance persuades us to require the adjudicating authority to have a proper look into the circumstances which led to the issue of show cause notice afresh. 6. Regarding the valuat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority in passing the orders impugned in these appeals. So the valuation issues in both the appeals, have to go back. In the first case arising out of show cause notice dated 3-11-1993, the adjudicating authority must consider the explanation of the manufacturer regarding the variation found at the time of stock taking. 7. The orders impugned in the first appeal are set aside and the matter remitted back to the adjudicating authority for deciding the issue in the light of the observations made earlier. In the second case, the adjudicating authority is directed to requantify the duty liability of the manufacturer on the facts found by him in the light of the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 579. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
