2005 (11) TMI 347

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce claim, the following goods were damaged:- S. No. Description Quantity Price Value 1. Roller Stand 2443 170 4,15,130/- 2. RLM Roller Stand 2740 210 5,75,400/- 3. Guide Piece 57736 6 3,46,428/- 4. Crank Case Right 2646 118 3,13,154/- It was also noticed that the insurance company had admitted a liability of Rs. 5,53,977/- for the stock-in-progress damaged in the fire accident. The fire accident had not been reported to the jurisdictional range officer of Central Excise until it was noticed by the internal audit party of the department. The appellants had not applied for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... had no intention of claiming any remission of duty on goods destroyed in the fire and hence it was not necessary for them to report the accident to the department. Out of the four items of goods damaged in the fire accident, the only items which were being manufactured by the assessee on their own were Roller Stand and Crank Case Right. It has been shown by Id. Consultant, by producing relevant extract of RG-1 Account, that roller stand was manufactured only on three dates [1-4-98, 4-4-98 and 8-4-98] in the year 1998-99 and that the production of the item on these three dates were cleared from the factory on payment of duty on the same respective dates. Insofar as the goods mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 3 above [RLM Roller Stand and Guide Pie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anything. In the circumstances, the allegation of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty is unsustainable. The appellants have shown that, in 1998-99, they manufactured Roller Stand only on three dates in the month of April and that the goods so manufactured were removed on payment of duty on the very dates of manufacture. There was no manufacture of roller stand for the remaining part of the financial year as evidenced by RG-I Account. As regards RLM roller stand and guide piece, these were products manufactured on job work basis, on which the assessee had no liability to pay duty. In respect of the remaining item [Crank Case Right], which was their own product, duty had been paid prior to issuance of show-cause noti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X