9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it transpired that M/s. Sundaram Industries, Madurai had cleared moulds of different varieties during the six years from 1997 to 2003 without payment of the duty due thereon. It was seen that the goods had been removed to the assessee s sister unit in Gurgaon without payment of duty under a set of commercial invoices. The assessee claimed that in respect of six invoices they had paid duty initially when the goods covered by them had been cleared to their Unit II, which was closed later and the goods had been removed to Unit III at Gurgaon. In the proceedings before the lower authorities, the appellant had not advanced any acceptable explanation for non-payment of duty in respect of these clearances and also for the much higher valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. CCE [2000 (119) E.L.T. 718 (Tri. - LB)] decided by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal, the facts were that goods had been cleared by one unit of the assessee to its another unit. He also cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (192) E.L.T. 852 (Tri.- Mum)] where the Tribunal had made the following observations :- 16. Besides there being no fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression on the part of the appellants, there was also no intention to evade payment of duty inasmuch as whatever duty was paid at Chinchpada unit would have become available as Modvat credit at the Piparia Unit. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jay Yuhshin v. CCE - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 718, has held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment or suppression of facts on the part of the appellants. Ld. SDR submits that the instant case was one of suppression of facts with deliberate intent to evade payment of duty and the impugned order deserved to be sustained. 4. On a careful consideration of the records and considering the submissions made by both sides, it is seen that the irregularity of non-payment had occurred in thirty-seven instances of clearances ten cases on 24-1-03, five cases on 11-10-2001 and four cases on 24-12-2001. To me it appears to be an error on the part of the concerned staff. I do not find any reason or motive for one of the largest duty paying units in the Commissionerate to evade payment of a relatively small amount of duty in a small number of case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
