9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1AC of the Central Excise Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upon Shri Naveen Malhotra (hereinafter referred to as appellant No. 2) under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the factory premises of appellant No. 1, who are manufacturers of tents and parts thereof, was visited by the Central Excise officers on 28-4-1998 and physical stock verification of finished goods and scrutiny of records, resulted in detection of shortage of two different varieties of tents. The statement of appellant No. 2, Proprietor of the factory was recorded on the spot and he admitted the shortage and suo motu debited the excise duty of Rs. 3,78,487/-. Certain records were recovered from the factory. A GR book of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of Rs. 10,80,914.36 P and proposing imposition of penalty was issued to the appellants. The notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner who upheld the charges in the notice and confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty. Hence these appeals. The learned Counsel Shri Gopal Prasad states, at the outset, that the amount of Rs. 3,78,487/- and the amount of Rs. 2,999.68 P have already been debited by the appellant No. 1 and he is not contesting this liability. He is confining his arguments to the balance duty demand of Rs. 4,84,948.80 P plus Rs. 2,14,478.88 P. 5. We have heard Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Advocate and Shri M.M. Dube, learned DR and perused the records. Our findings are as under : 1. Duty demand of Rs. 4,84,948.80 P :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. As seen from the above, in Sl. Nos. 1 and 2, the date of invoice and date of GR do not tally while in Sl. Nos. 3, 4 and 5, in addition to the discrepancy in dates, the quantity of goods shown in the invoice does not tally with the quantity shown in the GR. The appellants attempted to co-relate the above GRs and invoices by explaining that the GRs were obtained in advance and that the goods covered by the corresponding invoices were partly transported through M/s. Agra Rajasthan Transport Corp. and through other transporters. The co-relation chart filed by the appellants is reproduced below : Annexure Chart showing co-relation of Qty. With Note and C.E. Invoice as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise inv. Date - S.C. No. Date No. of Bdls. Name of Transporter 642 20-11-97 900 M/s. Agra Rajasthan Tpt. Corpn. BSF, Pantha Chowk, Sri Nagar 97 date 29-1-98 750T 643 10-12-97 480 - do - - do - 95 dt. 7-1-96 400 T 650 29-12-97 60 - do - - do - 103 dt. 18-2-1998 619 643 29-12-97 683 M/s. Om Roadways - do - 743 2584 720 Economic Tpt. Organization - do - 600 No Inv. could be issued between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded on 4-5-1998 that advance GRs are prepared for M/s. Naveen Textile Agencies, no valid reason has been given as to why normal practice of M/s. Agra Rajasthan Transport Corporation of issuing GRs only after the goods have been loaded in the trucks, was deviated from only in the case of appellant No. 1. The appellant No. 1 has also not been able to establish that other transporters through whom they also despatched their goods, followed the procedure of issue of advance GRs. Even as regards quantity, the appellant has not been able to show, as seen from the Co-relation chart above, the corresponding duty paying invoice for GR No. 653, dated 22-1-1998. Therefore, the contention of appellant No. 1 is not tenable. The Department has disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
