9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 8311.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985. During the course of transit checking on road, the Preventive Officers of Central Excise Division-I, intercepted a truck in the night of 3-6-2000/4-6-2000 and found that 398 cases of Electrodes valued at Rs. 6,95,912.16 (Rupees six lakh ninety-five thousand nine hundred and twelve and paise sixteen), were transported under the cover of extra copy of Invoice Nos. 139 140 dated 3-6-2000. The driver of the truck could not produce duplicate copy of the aforesaid invoices and therefore, the Preventive Officers visited the appellants factory and conducted investigation which revealed that the RG-I Register was written upto 30-5-2000 only and figures for production and clearances for 31-5-2000 to 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant company. He submits that the consignment of Electrodes covered by two Central Excise Invoices bearing Nos. 139 140 dated 3-6-2000, were sent to M/s. Punj Lloyd Ltd., Daval Power Project, Phase-I, Taluka Guhagar, Ratnagiri. He submits that the truck, in which these consignments were loaded, was detained and taken to the Divisional Office of Central Excise. Thereafter, the Central Excise Officers visited the factory in the early hours of 4-6-2000. The duplicate copy of the invoices was not found in the factory of the officers. The Night Shift Plant Supervisor in his statement dated 4-6-2000 before the Central Excise Officers, stated that he had handed over two envelopes to the driver of the lorry. The Managing Director of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be allowed. 3. Heard Shri A. Hore, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue, who reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He also submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed in his Order that non-production of duplicate copy of the impugned invoices and non-making of entries regarding production and clearance in the RG-I register for a considerable period of time, are enough materials on record to show that the appellant company herein has removed the goods without following the statutory provisions and in a clandestine manner with intent to evade payment of duty and when mens rea is proved in the said activity of the appellant-company herein, penalty is also imposable, apart from confiscation of goods under Rule 173Q of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rry in question. However, this fact has not been contested at any stage by the Officers. When the Central Excise Officers had visited the factory, it was also their duty to see whether the duplicate copy of the invoices was available with the appellant company or not. Nowhere it has been stated that the duplicate copies were available with the appellant company. The two envelopes had been found in the driver s cabin of the Central Excise Officers themselves. I find it difficult to agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the packet containing duplicate copy of the impugned invoices was handed over to the driver, when the matter was briefed by him to the owner of the truck, particularly when the truck was under the control ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
