9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of tin sheets found short. Ld. Collector also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on M/s. Tin Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. He also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- each on S/Shri S.P. Goel and Ravi Goel and a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on Shri S.U. Warsi. Ld. Collector also confirmed a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 43,700/- in respect of supplies of the tin containers made by M/s. Tin Manufacturing Co. of India to M/s. Gopal Tin Works Ltd. Being aggrieved by the above order, the appellants have filed these appeals. Only two appeals as indicated above have been filed and since both the appeals arise out of the same order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants have filed a Misc. application on the ground that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut under the impugned order held as indicated above that against this impugned order, three appeals were filed. The appeals were Nos. E/2586, 2587 and 2588/91-NB; that another demand was confirmed by corrigendum dt. 16-7-92 to the Order-in-Original dt. 24-4-91 and a penalty of Rs. one crore was also imposed; that this Corrigendum Order was also challenged before the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners of different varieties involving CED of Rs. 2,876.60 Basic + Rs. 103.83 Special was found. Since the authorised signatory could not properly explain the excess and shortage the goods were seized. On physical verification of the stock of raw-material 54.834 m.ts. of tin sheets were found in stock against recorded balance of 461.368 m.ts in R.G.23A Part I. When asked to explain, while explaining the shortage Shri Ravi Goyal in his statement dt. 1-3-88 stated that 440 tonnes of tin plates/sheets had been transferred from factory to their Delhi Godown, he, however, could not explain the dates on which the sheets were removed nor could he produce any Central Excise Gate Pass evidencing payment of duty on such removal. The officers also found 88.644 m.ts. of tin scrap scattered. As the Department considered that tin scrap was dutiable and should have been accounted for in-as-much as Modvat credit was taken on the imported tin sheets. Since this requirement was not complied with, therefore, this quantity of tin scrap was also seized the duty involved on this quantity was Rs. 33,972.75. Accordingly, a SCN was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why duty should not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been removed for home consumption or for export, no permission was required to be taken as the said stock of inputs remained a part of the factory and had to be stored outside the factory premises in view of the special circumstances. It was contended that the remaining 27.860 m.ts. had been sent back to the factory from the godown under intimation to the Asstt. Collector, Ghaziabad on 5-7-88 and 6-7-88. It was submitted that only 19 m.t. approximately remained unexplained. 7. Arguing the case for the appellants Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Counsel submits that in so far as excess of metal containers is concerned, proper explanation was given in-as-much as one day s production was yet to be recorded and some of the containers were to be tested for leak and inspected for quality. He submitted that in so far as shortage is concerned, the shortage is negligible. The appellants are manufacturing a large number of metal containers and the shortage of 2,000 app. is just very insignificant figure and may be on account of airthmetic calculations. In regard to shortage of tin sheets on which Modvat credit was taken it was submitted that 389.548 m.ts. had to be shifted to their Delhi Godown d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of duty and since part of the goods were recovered, therefore, confiscation of the goods is sustainable in law and the fine in lieu of confiscation is reasonable. Looking to the value of the goods in regard to process waste ld. DR submits that Modvat credit was taken on the sheets, therefore, the process waste generated in the process of manufacture was dutiable and should have been accounted for, therefore, confiscation is perfectly legal. Regarding imposition of penalty, ld. DR submits that penalty is nominal and therefore, does not need any interference. He reiterates the findings of the ld. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. 11. We have heard the rival submissions. On a careful consideration of these submissions, we find that there was an excess of 17076 metal containers. These metal containers were in the factory premises. The contention of the appellant is that part of these metal containers were the production of the day and part were still to be tested for leak and inspected for marketing. In the instant case we find that the contention of the appellant is not rebutted. We also find that there was no preparation for removal of these containers. It is a fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
