9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (5) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inrevision, the appeal case was heard by the Board on 28-2-1981 at Delhi at which Shri A.K. Chanddraso-Karan, Consultant along with Shri A.K. Gupta, Managing Director and Shri P.S.R. Swamy, Resident Representative appeared on behalf of the appellants (Angora Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana). 3. In this case, as per the Statutory account of raw material in Form-IV with effect from 6-5-1976 the Appellants had shown the receipt of 4500 Kg. of Acrylic Fibre in their factory. This quantity of 4500 Kg. figured in the raw material register till the date of visit of Central Excise Officers on 15-61979, when it was found in the said account, the opening balance of the goods in question was shown as 4500 Kg. 4. On 15-6-1979 the appellants could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the units mentioned above were found to be sister concerns. 10. It was only at the appeal stage that the appellants before the Board have contended that: (a) They had purchased 4500 Kg. of Acrylic Fibre Waste (Indian Packed) in 96 bags from Rajasthan Wool Industries as per certificate dated 22-8-1979. (b) These 96 bags containing 4500 Kgs. of Acrylic Fibre Waste were pledged to Indian Overseas Bank, (I.O.B.), Ludhiana on 18-11-1974 and were released to the appellants on 1-12-1977 (I.O.B.Certificate is dated 25-7-1979). (c) Another certificate from l.O.B., dated 24-8-1979 that these goods were formerly pledged in third city godown and subsequently transferred to the factory godown on 1-4-1976 due to leakage of roof and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. However, at the time of verification on 15-6-1978 the weight of each bora varied from 11.500 kg. to 61.500 kg. (iv) As per their bill, dated 1061978 the appellants had sold 1275 kg. of Acrylic Fibre Waste . If so, the balance in stock should have been 3225 kg. and not 3325.900 kg. as verified on 15-6-1978. (v) The goods were found in premises other than the approved factory premises. (vi) If the goods were only waste fibres, they would not have brought the same on their statutory records in Form IV register. (vi) As per remarks in the Raw Material Register for the year 197677 the Central Excise Officers and they recorded the certificate that observance given in the Inspection Note . 14. In these circumstances as also the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inly stressed that Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules was not applicable in this case as no clandestine removal of acrylic yarn produced out of acrylic fibre (raw material) had been established. 18. Another plea was that the appellants are not equipped to manufacture acrylic yarn and it was only presumed that they had clandestine manufacture and removal of acrylic yarn out of 4500 kg. of acrylic fibre. 19. In the written note submitted by the appellants, they have mainly contested that there is no evidence to prove clandestine manufacture and removal of acrylic yarn by them. 20. Moreover, the machinery installed in the factory of the appellants cannot produce acrylic yarn. 21. They have also urged that it was no more than pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that the appellants might have manufactured acrylic fibre yarn out of the raw material in question. 26. The Collector s report now shows that as per the certificate of the Deputy Director (Hosiery), Small Industrial Service Institute, Ludhiana it would not be possible for the appellants to manufacture acrylic yarn on the machines installed by them. From this it is obvious that the appellants could not have produced acrylic yarn in their factory. 27. In this connection the Collector has reported that there is another unit of Rajasthan Wool Industries adjacent to the appellants factory which is controlled by the same family. In the circumstances the Board finds that it was not necessary for the appellants to go all the way to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
