9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panchanama on 29/11/2000 on a reasonable belief that prime quality material had been imported by RRE in the guise of "C" grade / rejects. Subsequently, upon weighing them, it was found to be 11821 kgs. in weight i.e. there was a shortage of 7469 kgs. of CCL. In order to determine the quality of CCL lying in the factory premises, M/s. Bakelite Hylam, Sanathanagar, Hyderabad who are pioneers in the manufacture of CCL were requested to ascertain the quality of the material, who in its test report dt. 17/5/2001 testified that on visual appearance of the sheets they can be regarded as sub-standard quality but on the basis of tested properties the samples conform to international standards (NEMA, MIL). Therefore, it appeared that the material imported and seized was of prime / standard quality. Various statements of many persons were recorded. On scrutiny of the documents which were recovered during the course of their investigation, the lower authorities found that the invoice connected to Bill of Entry No.473 indicated three varieties of CCL. The conclusion reached by the investigating officers was that the appellant firm herein had mis-declared the goods. The investigating officers h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l short. 4.1. Ld. SDR on the other hand would submit that the provisions of Notifications are very clear and the assessee is required to maintain the records for the purpose of inspection and checking of the same. He would submit that having not been able to satisfy the authorities as regards the reason for shortage, the adjudicating authority was correct in confirming the demands. 4.2. As regards the Department's appeal, he would submit that the adjudicating authority has totally erred in dropping the demands. It is his submission that the Department's stand has not been properly appreciated by the adjudicating authority. He would submit that the adjudicating authority has erred in dropping proceedings by mis-interpreting the report given by M/s. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. at his own in a specific manner rather than seeking a re-report from the said M/s. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. It is his submission that in such a scenario, the adjudicating authority should have taken into consideration various corroborative evidences which were in form of the statements given by the buyers of RRE. It is his submission that the consignment under reference is covered by an Invoice dt. 7/6/2000 issued by a co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd quantity was in fact used by the appellant in his factory premises for the purpose of manufacture, we are of the considered view that the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority for confirming the demand are correct and needs to be upheld. We do so. This appeal to this extent is rejected. 8. As regards the penalty of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the Managing Partner of RRE u/s 112(a) of the Act, we find that he was the person who was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company, he should have been more diligent to check and counter-check the stock position in his factory premises. Due to his non-effective supervision, there was a shortage of 7469 kgs. of CCL which were imported under concessional rate of duty. We are of the considered view that the Managing Partner needs to be penalized for his activity and hence, we uphold the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 112(a) of the Act. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find a penalty of Rs.50,000/- is not proportionate to the demand of the duty which has been confirmed, in view of the above, upholding the imposition of penalty on Shri Ravi Ganeriwal, we reduce the same to Rs.25,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Final order No.1246-1247/2010 dt. 24/9/2010, this Bench while considering the appeal of the respondent had an occasion to go through the situation wherein the adjudicating authority had extrapolated the value of the live Bill of Entry to the past consignments which were imported by the appellant. The order recorded by this Bench on this issue is reproduced herein below:- "12. As regards past imports covered by Bills of Entry dt. 12/5/2000 and 7/10/1999, we have found no case for the Revenue. It appears that the yardstick applied in relation to the live consignment has been mechanically extended to the past imports. We do not think that the view taken in respect of the live consignment can be extrapolated mindlessly to cover the past imports. We have not found any evidence in support of the findings of misdeclaration of description and value, entered by the Commissioner in relation to the past imports. The only document on the basis of which these findings were entered in relation to the goods covered by Bill of Entry dt. 12/5/2000 is an invoice, copy of which is available at page 93 of paper book Volume-II. The Revenue has considered this document to be an "invoice" issued by Iso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
