9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 940 Kgs of semi-finished goods on the machines and 47,709.130 Kgs of Polyester Filament Yarn totally valued at Rs. 21,54,347 were confiscated under Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the bank guarantee Rs. 5,38,587/- executed against B-11 bond was appropriated. Further penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed on the appellants. The instant appeal challenges the said order. 3. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a 100% EOU, engaged in the manufacture of crimped yarn/textured yarn falling under sub-heading No. 5402.32 of the Central Excise Tariff. Consequent to search conducted on the unit by the officers of DGCEI, Regional Unit, Vododara, it was revealed that, no Central Excise records relating to receipt of raw material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attended. 4.1 The appellants in defence are countering this conclusion by claiming that the officers of the DGCEI, Vadodara also visited the office premises of the appellants on 8-2-2001 i.e. the same day as the date of their (DGCEI s) visit to the unit and seized various records as listed in the Panchanama dated 8-2-2001. Besides, the panchas have affixed signatures on the photocopy of a record titled Finished Room Stock . In the said record, the position of stock as reflected in the seizure, made at the factory, matches with the stock reflected in the panchanama drawn at the Head Office. 4.2 The learned D.R. points out that, the records were recovered from the office premises of M/s. Mahalaxmi Exports, and it is surprising as to how ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he inspecting officer is not present. Assuming that the officer for his own reason did not affix his signature on the said paper, by use of force of his authority then he could have also prevented the panchas from signing the document or worse he could have simply destroyed the document itself for the reason that the document was going against the case that was being made. The fact that such a document has been produced by the appellants only after receiving the show cause notice, wherein this document is missing as a part of panchnama, proves that this document is created by the appellants. 5.3 The next point is the fact that the said paper is also signed by the partner of the appellants. This means if at all this documents was available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
