9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SE 2. M/s. Spin Packaging Ltd., Akola, (hereinafter referred to as the applicant-company) are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP woven fabrics in rolls and in cut size and also availing Modvat of duty paid on inputs viz. PP Granules, Master Batch etc. under the Central Excise Rules. 3. On 15-4-99, Officers of the Preventive Branch of Central Excise (Headquarters), Nagpur paid a surprise visit to the applicant s factory and carried out checks including stock verification. It was found that there was a shortage in stock of the final products/inputs, involving central excise duty as mentioned under :- Final Products/ Inputs Quantity Value Duty P P Fabrics 27,355.750 kgs. Rs. 9,84,804/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay the shortfall of Rs. 2,000/- on admission of their case. The applicants also sought immunity from fine, penalty and prosecution. 8. Both the applications filed for settlement were allowed to be proceeded with by the Commission vide Interim Order dated 17-7-2001 and the amount of Rs. 4,23,000/- already paid was allowed to be adjusted against the admitted duty liability. The applicant was directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,000/- within thirty days. The applicant paid the balance admitted amount of Rs. 2,000/- vide TR-6 Challan dated 1-8-2001. 9. Final hearing in the matter was held on 20-11-2001. 10. The applicants M/s. Spin Packaging Ltd. and Shri Shashikant B. Jani, General Manager were represented by Shri D.C. Dighe, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the directions contained in the Interim Order No. 28/CE/2001, dated 17-7-2001. 12. The ld. Consultant requested the Commission to grant immunity under Section 32K of Central Excise Act, 1944 from prosecution, waiver of penalty imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 57-I(4) and waiver of interest under Section 11AB and Rule 57-I(5) since they had accepted and paid the central excise duty demanded in the notice dated 6/7-3-2000. 13. The Revenue was represented by Shri V.M. Udhoji, Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur. 14. The Revenue submitted that the applicant had admitted the shortage of stock at the time of verification. He further submitted that the applicant removed the goods under two challans and tampered with the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice, already deposited the major portion of the duty liability i.e. Rs. 4,23,907/-. Subsequently, the Applicant deposited the deficit of the balance amount of Rs. 2,000/- after admission of their case before this Commission. The Commission, therefore, finds that it is a fit case for granting immunity from prosecution to the Applicants under the Central Excise Act, and under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for the case for which the Applicants have approached the Commission. Penalty The Applicant has approached the Settlement Commission after the case was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner while adjudicating the case has analysed the evidence on record and has concluded that the duty as admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
