2000 (12) TMI 643

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng under Chapters 84 and 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On a visit to the factory, the Central Excise offers found goods valued Rs. 43,400/- were not accounted for in the statutory registers. They noticed that some finished goods valued Rs. 2,52,000/- were removed from the factory premises and same were found in the nearby premises of M/s. Bharat Hydraulics owned by the family members of Shri S. Hussain, Chief Executive of the appellant company. The said goods, which were not accounted for in the statutory records and those removed without payment of duty, were seized and on a request from the appellants the same were released provisionally on execution of B-11 (Security) Bond. A Show-cause Notice dated 30-1-1996 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s to how the security deposit is to be dealt with. According to him, any such deposit shall be adjusted against duty and penalty. He argues that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not passed any order to that effect. He further submits that as the provisionally released goods were duly entered in RG 1, and cleared on payment of duty of Rs. 40,000/-, the appellants are entitled to refund of the duty paid on the said goods when the appellants have already made security deposit at the time of provisional release of the goods. The learned Consultant argues that as there was no allegation of intended evasion of duty in respect of the goods not entered in the RG 1, the same were neither liable to seizure nor liable to confiscation. In support of this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d goods and added that the same were stored in the nearby premises due to storage of space. But in response to the Show-cause Notice, the appellants explained that the goods were in semi-finished condition and the same were removed to that premises for certain processes. This contradictory explanation leads any prudent person to reasonably conclude that the appellants have made a serious attempt to suppress the truth and therefore, must be held that they have intended to evade payment of duty. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the said nearby premises belongs to the family members of Shri S. Hussain, Chief Executive of the appellant company. These goods are therefore, liable for confiscation, but were not available for confis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X