9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haper (Veraval), Division-II, Rajkot. The applicant is following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Central Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder. The applicant is regularly exporting Flanges by following the procedure prescribed under the law. Sometimes to meet with the requirement of the customers and to facilitate the requirement of customer, the type of Flanges which could not be manufactured at the factory premises the applicant is importing the Flanges and supplying it to the customer. The applicant is maintaining separate account of the goods manufactured and also procured from our sources. For the goods manufactured, within the factory premises, the applicant at the time of export, prepares Central Excise in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igating officers directed them to clarify the manufacturing process and also inquired for identification of the material, which could not be explained by the employees. After recording the statement of the employees, they recorded the statement of the director and forced them to accept the statement of the employees. Thereafter, the director had executed the affidavit and have retracted the statement. After recording statement, department has issued three different show cause notices, proposing the confiscation of goods, rejection of Duty Drawback and imposition of penalty. 2. After adjudication proceedings, the seized goods have been confiscated, penalties have been imposed and duty drawback claimed under Section 74 in respect of earl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent s case is not merely based on the two consignments which were intercepted also on the basis of record. 5. We find that as claimed by the learned advocate in the shipping bills, there is a clear indication by the examining officers that the description of the goods in the shipping bill and that of goods which were imported tallies and therefore the penalty of Rs. 35 lakhs imposed upon the appellant does not seem to be justified. However, under the circumstances under which the examining officers certified the correctness of the description and consequences thereof, will have to be examined later. In view of the fact that the officers have certified the quantity and quality of the goods, prima facie, there appears to be no justificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
