9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, and a separate penalty of Rs. 39,388/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. During the course of investigations, officers of the department had found 493.55 mtrs of fabric valued at Rs. 69,590/- to have been kept unaccounted. These goods were seized under a panchnama by the officers believing that the same had been kept for clandestine removal. The demand of duty of Rs. 39,388/-, confirmed by the adjudicating authority is on these goods, which were also confiscated under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001/02 with an option to the assessee to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The demand of duty of Rs. 68,213/-, confirmed by the adjudicating authority, is on certain finished goods which were found sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly and discussed at Sr. No. 2 above. The present appeal is directed against the above order. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that, on the date (19-8-2004) on which the officers of the department visited the appellants factory (100% EOU), a quantity of 493.55 mtrs. of fabrics valued at Rs. 69,590/- was found unaccounted. One invoice bearing No. 85, dated 17-8-2004 alongwith a packing list covering the same quantity of goods was also recovered. The officers found the goods in a ready-to-dispatch condition. The invoice stood in the name of M/s. Fabricart Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. ( Fabricart for short). Shafid Ahmed Khan, Director of the appellant-company as also of M/s. Fabricart stated, under Section 14 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsofar as the quantum of redemption fine is concerned. The original authority had determined the quantum of fine at Rs. 10,000/-, against which no appeal was filed by the department. The enhancement of quantum of fine to Rs. 15,000/- by the appellate authority was ordered without notice to the affected party and the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have given notice, to the party, of any proposal for enhancement of quantum of line in terms of the first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Obviously, the mandate of law was defied. In the circumstances, the enhancement of fine is set aside with the result that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en by the original authority for rectification of accounting mistake. 5. On a perusal of the memo of the present appeal, I do not find any plea to the above effect. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the party is not interested in any opportunity for rectification of accounting mistake. The plea of accounting mistake stands unsubstantiated. In this scenario, the finished goods found short in the assessee s EOU should be held to have been clandestinely removed to DTA without payment of appropriate duty. Accordingly, the demand of duty of Rs. 68,213/- which was confirmed against the assessee by the original authority is sustained. 6. Neither in relation to the goods found unaccounted nor in relation to the goods found short ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
