9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. Saxena, Authorised Signatory of the company, was present during the course of proceedings on 22-11-1994. He acknowledged the correctness of the stock-taking in his statement given to the officers. On 24-11-1994, Shri Saxena, in his further statement given to the officers, stated that fully manufactured goods were entered in the RG 1 on the next day by 12.30 PM and that packed goods were kept in the finishing room for want of space in the bonded store room (BSR). As soon as space was created in the BSR, the goods from the finishing room were transferred to BSR. Shri Saxena admitted that only the goods in packed condition were entered in the RG 1. On the basis of the statements of the authorized signatory and of the results of the stock ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve head lamps which were kept in loose condition on the floor of the factory and were meant for export were not accounted by the officers at the time of stock-taking. Such goods would never have been cleared for home consumption and, therefore, the difference in stock could not have necessarily given rise to an inference that the goods found short had been clandestinely removed for home consumption. The learned Counsel submits that the allegation of clandestine removal requires positive evidence for confirmation of duty and imposition of penalty. He also submits that the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the appellants under Rule 173Q is high. 4. The learned DR reiterates the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). He particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the factory at the time of the officers visit. But, even in that reply, the appellants had not stated that those lamps were in packed condition. Lamps in unpacked condition never used to be entered in the RG 1 register. Therefore, even the party s belated explanation did not come anywhere near a satisfactory evidence vis-a-vis the Department s allegation of clandestine removal, without payment of duty, of a quantity of 12,556 automotive head lamps by the appellants. They have to pay duty of excise on that quantity. The demand of duty is, therefore upheld. 6. An amount of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on the appellants by the lower authorities under Rule 173Q. This rule, as it stood at the material time, provided for a penalty, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
