9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acity of 12,000 sq. mts. and cut and polished granite slabs to regular sizes upto an annual capacity of 36,000 sq. mts. As per the conditions of the scheme, the applicant was expected to export the entire production, excluding rejects not exceeding 5%, for a period of 10 years. 2. Based on information that the applicant was clearing the goods manufactured by them into the Domestic Tariff Afea (DTA) without payment of duty due thereon, the officers of Central Excise (Anti evasion), Head Quarters Office, Hyderabad searched the office and factory premises of the applicant simultaneously on 8-4-92. The officers seized certain records and documents from the factory and the reg. Office on the said date. As a result of conducting further inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri K. Ravinder Reddy as withdrawn in their Final Order 1207 to 1209/2002 dated 16-9-2002. After withdrawing the appeals from CEGAT the applicant had filed the settlement application, received in this Bench on 10-10-2002. 4. A hearing was held on 5-12-2002 whereupon, this Bench directed the consultant namely Shri Laxmi Narain Goel to confirm that the applications satisfy the requirements under Sec. 32E of the CEA, 1944. While he confirmed that the applications satisfy the conditions under the said section, he was not sure whether the applicant had filed the returns. He requested for time to verify and report the fact. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to 6-1-2003. 5. At the hearing held on 6-1-2003, Shri Goel confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is a duplication of the demand of duty by demanding duty based on selection/inspection reports. However, in the settlement application, the applicant has quantified the despatches and money receipts independently from Annexure XXVI. The total value of goods (1,10,326 sq. ft.) dispatched/cleared clandestinely works out to Rs. 93,77,710/- which is very close to the money receipts mentioned in the same Annexure as amount received for clandestine sales. However, the applicant accepts the entire payment receipt of Rs. 1,07,64,273/- as shown in Annexure XVIII of the SCN, and accepts to pay duty @ 15% on the said amount. He also contended that the duty cannot be demanded by invoking the proviso to Section 3(1) of the CEA, 1944. According to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ains demand of duty in respect of goods claimed under any other entry in the said Annexure. He illustrated his submission by a sample entry by referring to the first entry in Annexure-XV. The said entry relates to a selection and inspection on 10-12-1989 of a variety, viz. Mahagony. But there is no corresponding entry of such goods in the despatch details nor the money receipts, nor were these available in the factory premises. He therefore contended that the entire quantity under different categories as shown in Annexure-XXVI relates to goods cleared clandestinely. 7. He reiterated that duty has to be paid only by applying the proviso to Sec. 3(1) of the CEA, 1944. If, on the other hand, the duty is to be demanded as per the main Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to authorized capacity. 9. The Bench has considered the above arguments. At this stage, the question is of admission of the applications, having regard to whether the conditions under Sec. 32E of the CEA, 1944 are satisfied. As earlier said, the applicants have withdrawn the appeals filed with CEGAT and the appeal Nos. being E/76-78/98, the appeals were pending with CEGAT from 1998. By the order dated 16-9-2002, the CEGAT have dismissed the appeals as withdrawn and thereupon, the Settlement applications have been filed which were received in this office on 10-10-2002. The conditions of Sec. 32PA(1) of the CEA, 1944 is thus satisfied. While giving their comments in their letter dated 27-11-2002, under reference C. No. V/68/ 15/3/2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercise by verification of records with the Revenue on the contention of the Revenue that there is no duplication in duty demanded, and come up with further disclosure, if warranted. 11. The applicant has already deposited Rs. 20,00,000/- in pursuance of the order dated 14-5-98 on the miscellaneous applications E/MISC/411/98 in E/76-78/98 of the CEGAT, South Zonal Bench at Madras. The said deposit shall be adjusted against the admitted duty liability of Rs. 17,77,092/-. Since the application from the main applicant is found admissible, the application of the co-applicant has also to be admitted as the case has to be decided as a whole. Accordingly, both the applications are allowed to be proceeded with in terms of subsection (1) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
