9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for trading in excisable goods including HR coils falling under sub-heading No. 7208.39 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are working as a sales depot of M/s. Essar Steels Ltd., Hazira, District Surat, Gujarat which is the manufacturing unit. On 11-1-1999, during the course of nakabandi, Preventive staff of Central Excise Division I, Ludhiana intercepted one truck bearing Registration No. PJV-3271 loaded with 19.315 MTs of HR coils in transit at GT Road, Ludhiana, with invoice No. 1568, dated 30-12-1998 issued by the noticee No. 1 in favour of M/s. Hero Cycles Ltd., CR Division, Ludhiana (for short noticee No. 2). On enquiry, Shri Piara Singh, driver of the truck informed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for the excess stock. Therefore, these 60 coils valued at Rs. 1,85,07,786/- having been in excess of the recorded balance in RG 23D register were also seized under Section 110 ibid at the depot premises vide separate seizure memo dated 11-1-1999 prepared on the spot on the reasonable belief that these were also liable for confiscation under the provisions of Central Excise law. 2. In their defence, the noticee No. 1 submitted that they had sold all the 61 HR coils to M/s. Hero Cycles Ltd. on 30-12-1998 and 31-12-1998 under various invoices, but the materials were not actually sent for want of storage capacity with M/s. Hero Cycles Ltd., but both the original and duplicate copies of all the 61 invoices were delivered to the noticee No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct. In view of the specific and emphatic denial by noticee No. 2, the other contentions raised by noticee No. 1 also do not get any weight and the same cannot be relied upon. The case law cited by the appellant in support of their contention are distinguishable on facts. On the other hand, the Larger Bench in the case of M/s. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur reported in [2000 (116) E.L.T. 364], while considering the provisions of Rule 57GG have inter alia held that the language of the Rule 57GG is quite clear, unambiguous and leaves no doubt in one s mind that provisions of these Rules are mandatory and do not simply relate to any area of procedure; that these Rules being substantive in character an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
