TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant under Rule 173Q. 2. Advocate for the appellant explains that the major demand for Rs. 19.93 lacs aprox. is in respect of 2146.545 metric tonnes of finished product which the Collector finds has been cleared without payment of duty. He says that the basis for the demand is entries in the labour pay book showing amounts paid to the labour contractor of the appellant for loading and unloading the goods. Appellant manufactured goods on job work basis for M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO for short) and bought back part of these goods. The remaining part of these goods were sold in situ to M/s. Prakash Traders, a proprietary concern of Puranlal Agarwal a director of the company. They were removed from the factory to an adjacent pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, he finds that no gate passes have been issued for goods on some of the trucks. Although appellant had paid freight in advance for the material loaded in these trucks which were removed on, there is no challans of the appellant and M/s. Prakash Traders. 6. The appellant cross-examined in the proceedings before the Collector Guharam Kunshi Sagarwanshi, the labour contractor. He said that he was doing the work of loading and unloading of goods in Sunvijay Re-rolling Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. inside the factory as well as outside the factory. Finished goods were being kept in the godown which was adjacent to the factory. We do not see how these statements of Sagarwanshi before the Collector help the appellant to establish that the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining entry related to Prakash Traders. It is not disputed that the payments specified therein was not by Prakash Traders but by the appellant. If parts of the payments were incurred on account of Prakash Traders. This is particularly so since Puranlal Agarwal was only a director of Sunvijay Re-rolling Co. Pvt. Ltd., and could not have authorised payment of the company s money for expenditure of his proprietary firm. The finding of the Collector that no evidence has been produced with regard to purchase of the plot by the appellant has also not been controverted in the appeal. No evidence such as the title deeds or other evidence of purchase has been produced. The finding of the Commissioner that the entries in the register relating to lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the production register. This part of the order is therefore confirmed. 9. Modvat credit to the extent of Rs 90,72,948/- have been disallowed with respect to inputs found outside the factory. The Collector has not accepted the contention of the appellant that these could not be brought within the factory because the weigh bridge on the road, outside the factory gate, was not wide enough to permit entry of the truck, carrying the goods. He found that one of the gates of the factory is large enough to permit entry of large vehicles. He found that temporary permission was given to the assessee by Superintendent to store these goods at the factory gate but no permission was given for storing the goods outside the factory gate. 10. It is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
