9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based on the shortage of inputs/finished goods and clandestine removal of the same was raised and penalties were also proposed to be imposed on them. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties as detailed in the impugned order against all the appellants. Appeal No. E/2666/04-B 3. In this appeal, Company M/s. Rochees Watches Ltd. (in short 'RWL') is the appellants. The learned counsel has contended that there is no tangible evidence on the record to substantiate the charge of clandestine removal of the goods during the period in dispute by this company and as such the impugned order confirming the duty with penalties deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r used by them admittedly and as such no Modvat credit could legally be claimed by them in respect thereof. Therefore, the duty demand of Rs. 24,35,647/- in respect of these watch movements on which the appellant-company claimed Modvat credit illegally had been rightly demanded and confirmed against them. 5. The shortage of 96017 pieces of watch cases and 7548 pieces of quartz movements on physical stock verification taken by the officers in the factory premises of the appellants-company allegedly was detected as detailed in the show cause notice involving duty of Rs. 36,87,053/- and Rs. 61,410/- respectively. But this shortage had been duly explained by the appellant-company. According to the company, it had stock of very old wat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en there is no tangible evidence to prove the correctness of these entries and actual removal of goods to various buyers by the company in the market. Even the names of buyers had not been identified to whom the goods were cleared. Therefore, the duty demand of the above referred amount in respect of these goods, is set aside, in the light of the above referred facts and ratio of the law laid down in the case of Sulekh Ram and Sons v. UOI , 1978 (2) E.L.T. 525; and Collector of Central Excise v. Decent Dyeing Co. - 1990 (45) E.L.T. 201 (S.C.), that it is for the Department to prove the removal of the goods without payment of duty by the manufacturer. 6. Similarly, duty demand of Rs. 36,587/- and of Rs. 26,066/- on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d shown the use of mechanical watch movements in the manufacture of digital electronic watches whereas in such watches, these movements could not be used at all as for the manufacture of digital electronics watches, digital modules are required. This fact had been also not disputed by Shri Isher Das Moolrajani, partner of the firm in his statement recorded on 27-12-2001 and 23-2-2003. Therefore, it is quite evident that the appellant-firm has wrongly availed the credit on the mechanical watch movements which were never utilized by them in the manufacture of digital electronic watches. Therefore, duty demand, detailed above, has been rightly confirmed against the firm for wrong availment of the credit. 8. However, the clandestine r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, duty demand of Rs. 4,86,110/- is set aside. 10. However, demand of Rs. 14,881/- by denying credit on the imported quartz movements, has been rightly confirmed as these goods were never received by the firm. Appeal No. E/2668/04-B 11. In this appeal, M/s. Rajasthan Watch Manufacturers (in short 'RWM'), is the appellant. The duty demand of Rs. 79,565/-, Rs. 47,876/-, Rs. 1,29,454/- has been confirmed against this firm by denying the credit on imported watch movements which were allegedly removed as such. But no tangible evidence has been produced to prove the removal of these goods as such after taking the credit by the firm. No statement of any buyer to whom the goods were sold, had been brought on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not manufactured mechanical watches during the year 1988-99. It has been clearly admitted by Shri Isher Das Moolrajani, that the firm had wrongly availed the Modvat credit on the mechanical watch movements. The mechanical watch movements could not be utilized in the manufacture of digital electronic watches as in those watches digital modules were required. The firm had wrongly shown entries in the account of module of digital watches as well as in the account of mechanical watch movement to show the use of these movements. It also stands proved that they illegally obliterated the description of the movements on the duty paying documents. The watch movements in question on which credit was taken by the appellant-firm, in fact, were neve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
