9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pastes during January, 1973 to 27-8-1974 without observance of Central Excise procedures and payment of duty. Certain duplicate records like Gate-Passes were also recovered and unaccounted sale of large quantity of paints and varnishes to Railways established. A show cause notice dated 28-1-1975 inter alia charging evasion of Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,16,419.25 [Rs. 1,44,279.50 (Basic) and Rs. 72,139.75 (Auxiliary)] and proposing confiscation of the said 120 litres of paint besides imposition of penalty was issued by the Collector of Central Excise. 3.The Collector adjudicated the case and confirmed the duty demanded, imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and confiscated the said 120 litres of paint giving option to redeem it on a fine of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd every event, say, who attended the search on behalf of the noticee, which registers/documents etc. were recovered. Such details are invariably available in the panchnama and the noticee cannot be ignorant of the same. It is sufficient if a show cause notice is properly worded, duly disclosing essential particulars of charge and proposed action [Crystic Resins v. Collector - 1985 (19) E.L.T. 285 (Tri.)]. Thus, it is only essential particulars which have to be mentioned. Further, even if some necessary particulars have not been stated in the show cause notice (which is certainly not the case here as we will see later), the same cannot be a ground for quashing a notice, for, it is open to the noticee to seek further particulars [Gwalior R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an indirect admission of knowledge of these facts on the part of the applicants when, on page 3 of the reply to the show cause notice, they have mentioned that "the fact remains that said 120 litres of R.M. Paints was found by them not in marketable condition . . . . . . it was not recorded in RG-1 . . . . . . on 27-8-1974". Applicants' plea of ignorance of these material facts of para 2 is thus without force. Finally on para 3 that deals with maintenance of duplicate sets of gate passes, as stated above, Annexure-A to the show cause notice gives details of the gate-passes. 7.It is, therefore, incorrect for the applicants to say that they were not aware of the facts mentioned in paras 1, 2 3 of the order-in-original or that the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out 1800 sq. ft. of area. Suggestion of the applicants is that it is physically impossible to manufacture 1,04,000 Litres of paints in one month (June 1973) in such a small space. This plea is not convincing, because the above figure implies average daily production of just 3,000 to 4,000 litres (i.e. 3 to 4 Cubic meter) which will not occupy much space for storage etc. If there is a reasonable rate of turn-over and despatches the quantity is not much. The other plea that they could not manufacture aluminium paint as they had not declared it in the classification list is only begging the question, for the allegation against them is of manufacturing goods without following the prescribed procedure, which also includes declaration, filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
