9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of industrial laminates. Its entire production was removed on payment of duty from its factory to its depots from where they were sent to buyers. The appellant had filed price list either in proforma I in respect of goods cleared to its dealers or in proforma part II at higher value where goods hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department. On some unspecified occasions between 1981 and 1986, the appellant omitted to pay differential duty on the goods cleared by the manner described above which has resulted in issue of notice. During the visit by a team of auditor of the department, a comparison of the depot invoices with other documents showed the failure to pay duty. This resulted in notice issued to the appellant wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough the documents from the factories would be the basis for assessment by the officers. It is this duty that would be reflected in the RT12 Returns which is the basic document for assessment. Subsequent payment of duty at the depot could not be reflected in the RT12 Returns. The fact that the appellant himself failed to pay correct duty even subsequently indicates the dangers inherent in the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossible to set aside the penalty on the ground that the appellant did not have any intention to evade duty. As we have emphasised the inherent dangers of the procedure that the appellant followed and the total disregard of law and procedure that it involved permit the conclusion that there was intention to evade duty. In point of fact, there has been such evasion. The fact that the departmental au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
