9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to September 1998 when the factory is under physical control and removed, either the officer in charge has connived with the appellants or he closed his eyes to whatever was happening. In either case, the department should have proceeded against the officers. There is absolutely no indication in the investigation regarding any complicity of the officers posted in the appellants unit. Moreover, the investigation has not found out at least a few buyers who have received the goods cleared clandestinely. There is no evidence of excessive consumption of electricity. When the officers visited the unit, they had not found out any unaccounted stock of cut tobacco. In the present case, the charges are based purely on a theoretical working out based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- was imposed on Shri B. Raja Vara Prasad, Director of HTL under Rule 209A of CE Rules, 1944. The appellants strongly challenged the findings of the adjudicating authority. 4. Shri R. Sashidharan, learned Sr. Advocate and Shri M.S. Rajappa, learned Consultant appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri L Narasimha Murthy, learned SDR appeared on behalf of the respondents. 5. The learned Advocate and the learned Consultant urged the following points : 1. The appellants' unit is under physical control. Each clearance is on the basis of the permission from the Central Excise Officer posted in the factory. Removal of huge quantity of cut tobacco is not possible especially when the unit is under physical control. 2. The documents req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated that the quantity of 9,584 kgs. of raw tobacco as mentioned in the working sheet forms part of the receipt of the raw tobacco into the factory. As regards the quantity of raw tobacco of 22,028 kgs., it was submitted that the Revenue based its conclusions in view of the blend sheets having been written twice. It was explained that the blend sheets were written twice only with a view to maintain secrecy of the blend. The blend sheet meant for the exporter did not completely tally with the original blend sheet in respect of the various grades of tobacco. But, the total quantity was the same. This was done intentionally to maintain secrecy. This explanation has not been accepted by the adjudicating authority. Hence he has come to the conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reiterated the findings of the OIO and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The Revenue has come to the conclusion that 41,777 kgs. of raw tobacco was unaccounted and the appellant had manufactured cut tobaccos out of it and removed it clandestinely. The inference is based on certain private documents only. There is no corroborative evidence recorded. If such huge quantity of cut tobacco was manufactured during the period from April 1998 to September 1998 when the factory is under physical control and removed, either the officer in charge has connived with the appellants or he closed his eyes to whatever was happening. In either case, the department should have proceeded against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
