9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of detergent cakes and Tata's 501 bar at other places in the factory. 1.1 The officers also could lay their hands on three private registers in which day's production was being shown date wise and one labour attendance register in which too the production was shown. It is the allegation of the department that the details of the production shown in these registers have never been carried over in the R.G. 1 which, according to the department, is an evidence that the appellants had cleared the following goods in a manner other than provided under Central Excise Rules without payment of Central Excise duty :- 1.2 On the day of visit the appellants could not produce the raw material register in form IV on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered in the R.G. 1 register because they had not yet attained the R.G. 1 stage. The Collector has held that in any case these cartons ought to have been entered in column 15 pertaining to stock in finishing room . He, therefore, upheld the contravention of Rules 53,173G and 226 in respect of the above mentioned 472 cartons of detergent cakes. For the remaining 905 cartons the Collector accepted the plea of the appellants having regard to the practice of stage of entry in R.G. 1. Since the goods had been provisionally released on execution of a bond the Collector appropriated an amount of ₹ 5,000/- from the security for the bond. In addition, he imposed a penalty of ₹ 1.000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interfere with the Collector's findings on the aforesaid goods being liable to confiscation and, since the goods had already been released, in appropriating an amount of ₹ 5,000/- taken as security for provisional release of the goods under a bond; we also uphold the amount of penalty of ₹ 1,000/- imposed on the appellants on this count. 5. Next issue is regarding the alleged removal of 32,734 cartons of plus detergent cakes and 500 bars without payment of duty. On adjudication, the Collector has held that 7800 cartons of 501 bars have been duly accounted for by the appellants and therefore, he drops the charge of clandestine removal of those 501 bars. However, he upholds the charge of removal of detergent cakes of 250 g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the charge of clandestine removal is based and the R.G. 1 is not possible because the purpose of different registers is different as explained by their production Superintendent Shri P. Saraswat. The learned advocate for the appellants relied upon strongly on the following para of his statement dated 5-7-1985 recorded in Hindi (translated in English) :- The officers enquired as to how production shown in cartons entered in labour registers is shown in R.G. 1. In this connection I have to state that the cartons that are shown in this register is the day's work. In our factory the packing is done in two ways, (1) Packing by hand for which sealing is done later, and the cakes are packed in cartons which are taped and then entere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not entered in R.G. 1 register and that on several dates packed cartons could not be accounted for in R.G. 1 and that some quantity was wasted during packing, wrapping etc. Accordingly, he did not accept the defence of the appellants and held that the production shown in the private accounts has not been accounted for at all in the R.G. 1 and as such has been clandestinely removed. The Collector, therefore, has demanded duty to the tune of ₹ 7,77,460.93 on plus 250 gms. and plus 125 gms. cakes detergent. He also imposed a penalty of ₹ 60,000/- 7. With regard to the aforesaid finding of the Collector regarding there being the excess entry in R.G. 1 over that of private accounts the appellants have urged that the Collector d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Supdt. are different. In any case as held by the Collector that during the period February 1985 to June 1985 production in R.G. 1 is greater than that shown in the private records, it will, therefore, be too far fetched to conclude that the production as shown in private records though for different purposes is not included at all in the R.G. 1. For such a conclusion some more evidence is required regarding consumption of raw material or sale of such goods alleged to have been produced in excess by the appellants. Obviously such evidence is lacking. In the circumstances, we cannot hold that the production shown in the private records has not been included at all by the appellants in their R.G. 1 and has thus been clandestinely removed. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
