TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by it from its factory at Andheri to the godown of M/s. Murphy (India) Ltd. at Parel. M/s. Murphy (India) Ltd. was the marketing agents for the appellant and all the goods were sold by Murphy. As a result of searches conducted by the department of this godown as well as the appellant s factory, the officers found delivery challans and invoices relating to the removal from the factory to the godown some of which did not contain the numbers of the gate passes until the goods had been cleared. On this basis the notice was issued alleging removal of 3197 TV sets without payment of duty. In the course of the subsequent proceedings, the assessees produced documents in support of his contention that goods had been cleared without payment of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of duty. He has not independently discussed this aspect in his order. It would therefore follow that the view that he adopts in the extract quoted above with regard to the remaining is not the view of the officers who participated in the reconciliation. He does not himself in the order go into details as to why the contentions raised before it with regard to these were not acceptable. This view reported in the last sentence of the extract reproduced above is itself guarded and does not say clearly that reflected conclusive finding that the goods were cleared without payment of duty. Apart from that, as we have indicated it is not supported by any reason. In these circumstances, having regard to the large number of documents to be consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal representative points out the finding of the Collector that these were manufactured prior to 3-9-1989 i.e. some time before the seizure on 19-10-1989; that the production capacity did not permit the production of this number on a single day and that two television sets of this manufacture during the middle of September to support the finding that they were liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q. They were intended to be removed without payment of duty. It is not possible only two television sets of this type were manufactured in September; the Collector seems to conclude this on the basis of the entry in the RG 1 register since that was the issue in question. There is considerable doubt as to whether these sets had been fully manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
