9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MMR/CEX/IND/05 dated 21-7-2005, which itself was passed in pursuance of the Tribunal s order of remand vide Final Order No. A-797-798/94-NRB dated 22-8-94. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant is a manufacturer of bulk drugs, which came into Excise Net w.e.f. 1-3-88. The officers visited the factory on 5-5-88 and conducted stock verification and found sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. Ld. Advocate submits that bulk drugs manufacturers are under stringent control of Drug Control Authorities and required to maintain accounts relating to raw materials and finished goods under the Drug Control Act as well. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the discrepancies in the excise records. 5. Ld. SDR submits that the private records maintained by the appellant clearly indicated production in excess of what was mentioned in the excise records. The appellant is under obligation to explain the entries in the private records, which indicated production and clearances in excess of what was accounted for in excise records. The fact that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r cross examination of witnesses of non-existing panchnama does not arise. Apparently, the representation made before the Tribunal by the appellant on earlier occasion was based on incorrect facts, to say the least. The Commissioner also considered the records maintained under the Drug Control Act and came to the conclusion that merely because the entries in the records maintained under the Drug C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... landestine removal and that, the appellant-company stands closed since February, 1992 and sought for leniency in terms of penalty. 7. Taking the entire facts and circumstances of the case into account, the order of the Commissioner, insofar as the same relates to demand of duty, is upheld and the penalty imposed is reduced from Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
