9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y M/s. Gauri Pack and the goods were received from the appellants M/s. Purify Filters, Faridabad, M/s. Lumax Filters Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon and M/s. Western Auto Spares, Ahmedabad. The Central Excise Officers visited the premises of the appellants M/s. Purify Filters, Faridabad. Sh. D.K. Mattoo, partner of the firm produced invoice No. 56, dated 28-8-98 in respect of the goods loaded in the tempo. On scrutiny of the invoice it was observed that they had not mentioned the rate and amount of duty and debit particulars on the original and duplicate copies of the invoice. On verification of the triplicate and quadruplicate copies of the invoices it was observed that they had mentioned rate, amount of duty and debit particulars but the assessable value was different in comparison to what was shown in the original and duplicate copies of the invoice. It, therefore, appeared that the appellants were giving different particulars on one set of invoice consisting of original and duplicate copies and another set consisting of triplicate and quadruplicate copies. On further scrutiny it was noticed that the goods loaded in the tempo were unaccounted for in the RG 23A Part II and the duty was not de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,29,272/- 4,57,194/- 2,39,490/- 1996-97 92654 42,91,572/- 4,00,104/- 2,18,017/- 1997-98 100100 49,82,689/- 5,28,239/- 4,74,713/- 1998-99 31776 15,97,698/- 1,83,666/- 1,15,623/- Total 333389 1,59,01,231/- 15,69,203/- 10,47,843/- 3. Accordingly, it is alleged that M/s. Purify Filters received Rs. 15,69,203/- as duty from M/s. Escorts Ltd., Faridabad but they have deposited Rs. 10,47,843/- as Central Excise duty; that they had thus recovered an amount of Rs. 5,21,360/- extra but had not deposited the same to the Government account. Accordingly, it is alleged that the party contravened the provisions of Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rules 91, 52A, 53, 173C, 173F, 173G and 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 inasmuch as they had collected duty at the full rate from M/s. Escorts Ltd., Faridabad but deposited duty at concessional rate by manipulating the invoices; that they have defrauded the Government to the tune of Rs. 5,21,360/- during the period from June, 1995 to August, 1998 which attracted the extended period as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty from the buyer, but also manipulated the central excise invoices with intent to evade payment of central excise duty. Therefore, the differential duty of Rs. 5,21,360/- is required to be recovered from the noticee under Section 11A of the Act. In respect of the seizure of the goods from the tempo, the adjudicating authority has observed in his order that on scrutiny of central excise records, it was found that the said goods were not accounted for in the RG 1 Register and the duty was not debited in PLA; that the noticee had not mentioned the rate and amount of duty and debit particulars on the original and duplicate copies of the said invoices; that on further verification of the triplicate and quadruplicate copies, it was noticed that the rate, amount of duty and debit particulars in these copies were different as compared to original and duplicate copies of the invoices. Therefore, it is apparent that though the noticee had issued invoice No. 56, dated 28-8-98 in respect of the goods loaded in the tempo but the said invoice was manipulated one; that it was manipulated and fabricated by the noticee with a mala fide intention to short-pay the central excise duty on these goods. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 11A are not applicable in their case since in this case there are clear findings both in the order-in-original as also in that of the lower appellate authority that the appellants have collected higher amount from their buyers M/s. Escorts Ltd. by way of central excise duty than what they have deposited with the department. It is contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has specifically mentioned that the duty on them is not confirmed under Section 11D but the same is confirmed under Section 11A. Ld. Consultant for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Eternit Everest Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 28 (Mad.) in which the Hon ble High Court has made the following observations : On a careful consideration of the scope of Section 11A, we are of the view that the machinery or procedure contemplated under Section 11A can be said to be available only when any of the contingency visualized under the said provision arise or exist viz., when any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded. The provisions of Section 11A, in our view, definitely postulate and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
