TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Modvat credit of Rs. 1.55 lakhs, Rs. 3.88 lakhs and Rs. 13.63 lakhs from GSP, GIP, and Metalloys respectively and imposed penalties totalling of Rs. 1.05 lakhs, Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively on each of them. 2. The duty has been demanded on a number of grounds. Rs. 14.24 lakhs approximately has been demanded from GSP on the ground that sintered bushes which were purportedly manufactured and cleared on payment of duty by GIP were in fact actually manufactured by GSP who should pay the duty. Similarly duty of Rs. 7.10 lakhs has been demanded from GIP on the ground that it was a manufacturer of tin products purportedly manufactured by Metalloys. With regard to these allegations, the issue as to who actually is the manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of statement of employees such as Mamta Kanekar and Parsekar, which showed that invoices were issued fictitious parties and goods are not sent to such parties but sent to the Mumbai office and sold in cash from Mumbai office. He emphasised that Anil Lotlikar, Director of GSP was also not able to explain. 4. The price list has not been produced and is therefore not possible to say that the prices in this cases relating to the goods are only for OE manufacturers. It also contradicts the position put forward in the correspondence with Spinya Equipment Pvt. Ltd., which, it was stated during the hearing was an OE manufacturer. The omission to mention the price lists in the correspondence with this buyer is significant. Again, in the normal cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not available, applying the increased value of the bushes and taking into account clearance made from GIP of bushes which were stated to have been manufactured by GSP. Hence again issues are arguable. 7. Financial hardship was pleaded, but Advocate for the applicants stated that this could not be substantiated because the books of accounts of the applicant had been seized by the department in 1995 and hence balance sheet could not be prepared. The Departmental Representative contends that at least rough balance sheet certified by a Chartered Accountant could have been produced, in the absence of which financial hardship cannot be accepted. We are unable to understand why, even if the books of accounts were taken away at least a rough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
