9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir PLA or RG 23A, Pt. II register. The duty liability in respect of these invoices worked out to Rs. 87,778/-. It was also noticed that inputs involving duty liability of Rs. 7,426.20 had already been consumed in the manufacture of final products. The Department proposed to confiscate the seized raw materials and to recover Rs. 87,778/- as duty on final products cleared under the aforesaid invoices. They also proposed to disallow Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 7,426/- on the inputs already consumed as aforesaid. The appellants were also sought to be penalised under Rules 9(2) and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The party contested the proposed action of the Department. They, however, debited an amount of Rs. 80,959/- out of the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officers were not liable to be confiscated and consequentially the assessees were not liable to be penalised under Rule 173Q inasmuch as those goods were duty-paid. At best, according to ld. Advocate, the Department could deny Modvat credit on those goods. He has particularly pointed out that the factum of Central Excise duty having already been paid on such raw materials has not been disputed by the Department, nor is there any finding to that effect in the orders of any of the lower authorities. As regards duty of Rs. 87,778/- as confirmed by the lower authorities, ld. Advocate has submitted that an amount of Rs. 80,959/- out of the said amount had already been debited by the party before the issue of the show-cause notice. This fact was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... countered by ld. Advocate, in his rejoinder, drawing support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commr. of Central Ex. & Cus., Surat v. Dincotex Private Ltd. [1999 (107) E.L.T. 326 (T)]. In the cited case, the appellants had not entered grey fabrics (inputs) in the relevant record and, therefore, Department had proposed to penalise the party under Rule 173Q. The Bench held that the said goods were not liable to confiscation inasmuch as no duty was payable on the goods and the appellants, in that case, were not manufacturers of the said goods. Ld. DR has, with leave of the Bench, submitted that the cited case is distinguishable on facts from the instant one inasmuch as the rawmaterials (grey fabrics) in that case were exempt fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Clause (bb) has to be sustained. As regards Clause (d) which covers cases of contravention of rules with intent to evade payment of duty, I have not been able to find any finding by any of the lower authorities on the question whether intent to evade payment of duty was established. The mere detection of unaccounted raw materials is not enough to prompt the Departmental authorities to go to the far-fetched extent of thinking that the same was kept for manufacture of final products and such final products would have been removed clandestinely without payment of duty. I do not see any categorical allegation in the show cause notice that the raw materials were kept in the appellants' factory on 24-1-1997 with intent to evade payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
