9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d thirty eight only) Rs. 60,59,152/- BED and Rs. 6,92,886/- SED) against SCN No. V/PI/15-16 dtd. 6-6-1994 in respect of M/s. Veena Industries Bombay, under Section 11A(2) Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 which shall be paid forthwith. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rs. fifty lakhs only) on M/s. Veena Industries, Bombay under Rule 173Q (1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. I order confiscation of land, building, plant, machinery etc. used in connection with the manufacture, production, storage, removal and disposal of the impugned goods belonging to Veena Industries under Rule 173Q (2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. However M/s. Veena Industries are permitted to redeem the said land, building ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing order on 1-6-2000 :- "For the reasons discussed above the stay application of the applicants in all these cases cannot be allowed for the waiver of the pre-deposit in full, except for Shashikant Rane, Excise clerk of Veena Inds. M/s. Veena Inds. and its proprietor Suresh Choksi are directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs and VMSC of Rs. 10 lakhs, Paresh Shah of Rs. 5 lakhs and Veena Choksi Rs. 3 lakhs towards the duty and penalty under the impugned order, within three months from the receipt of this order subject to which the balance of deposit of duty and penalty on all the applicants are waived and recovery stated." Thus, the amount towards excise duty, penalty, etc. excluding interest which comes to about Rs. 2.2 crores. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under 8437.00 as per Board circular dated 5-12-1994 and show cause notice deserves to be withdrawn. The Board circular is binding on the Central Excise officers. In view of the objection in the defence the adjudicating officer has to decide the classification of mills is 8509 or 8437. In response to that the adjudicating authority has discussed in page 24 and 25 about the classification of the goods. According to it Veena Industries had claimed for the first time that the goods are not classifiable under 8509. He has observed that the classification of the issue is not in show cause notice, and there is no dispute in that regard. But he has considered both the chapter heading and after the discussion has held that on merits goods falls unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grant of unconditional stay. Their defence makes out that they have indirectly admitted the case of the department in the show cause notice and have given explanation to them. That by itself is insufficient to make out a prima facie case in favour of the applicants. It has to be decided in the light of unretracted statements of the witnesses and the records which can only be done this case is still to be finalised. The question whether the Board circular on the basis of which the applicants are claiming classification and benefit of duty exemption under Notification 111/88 and the nature of the Board circular issued are a matter of controversy between the parties and as such the applicants case that they have got a prima facie case in that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
