TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant company removed goods involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 27,598/- against Invoice No. 198 dated 20-12-1997 against fake RG 23A, Part II entry against inadequate balance in statutory records; (2) Clandestinely removed goods involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,42,000/- on 16-12-1997, 18-12-1997 and 19-12-1997 without issuing any invoice and without paying any duty; (3) Clandestinely removed 73,959 kgs. of finished goods involving Excise duty of Rs. 7,02,610/- without issue of invoice and without payment of duty; (4) Suppressed production of 23,187 kgs. involving duty of Rs. 2,20,276/- in their statutory records and removed without payment of duty. (5) could not account for shortage of 47 MTs of acrylic plas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this demand is based on four loose sheets recovered from the office table of Shri S.P. Singh, General Manager of the Company who has admitted that the quantity of goods covered therein (in those loose sheets) were cleared without entering them in the statutory records and without payment of duty. Shri S.P. Singh is a Senior Executive who was looking after the production and clearance of the firm and hence his statement can be relied upon to prove the charge of clandestine removal. The submission of the learned Counsel that the statement of watchman who is alleged to have made the entry in the loose sheets, was not recorded, nor was the statement of the driver of the truck on which these goods were alleged to have been removed from the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference between RG. 1 figure of 57,158 kgs. and the production report figure of 1,31,118 kgs. We therefore, hold that this charge has been proved against the appellants and uphold the duty demand covered hereunder. IV. Suppression of production of 23,187 kgs. involving duty of Rs. 2,20,276/- : This charge is based upon the Daily Progress Report and Daily Report. Production sheets for the period 3-12-1997 to 19-12-1997. The Daily Progress Report shows receipt and consumption of raw materials while the Daily report shows the number of sheets and the weight of the sheets produced on a particular day. The General Manager of the company when asked for his explanation regarding the difference between production reflected in the RG 1 register ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Commissioner was that the goods shown in the daily report as having been manufactured, included waste and rejection. Since the submission of the appellant is not substantiated and since the General Manager of the Company has also admitted that the goods shown in the daily reports, were removed without accountal and without payment of duty, we uphold the finding of the Commissioner on this issue and confirm the duty demand of Rs. 2,20,276/-. 4. The case law relied upon by the learned Counsel in support of his contention that evidence on record is not sufficient to prove clandestine clearance is distinguishable. The evidence will vary from case to case. In the present case, the evidence to establish clandestine removal consists of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecorded on the spot. Therefore, it is too late in the day for the appellants to argue before us that physical stock taking was not conducted. We therefore, uphold the finding on this issue. VI. Modvat credit of Rs. 72,97,835/- of duty paid on inputs not received in the factory premises of the appellants : According to the Department, records show that all inputs namely acrylic scrap was received at the appellants Head office located at D/19, SMA Cooperative, GT Karnal Road, Delhi from where the same was transported in small quantities to the factory without accounting for the same. The Department alleges that credit had been availed on the basis of duty paying documents only, without physical receipt of inputs at the place of manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g requirements of Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 according to which no credit shall be taken by the manufacturer unless the inputs are received in the factory under the cover of an invoice issued under Rule 520A or 100% EOU or Bill of Entry. It is further noticed that in this case the assessee had neither taken the Commissioner s permission for storage of the inputs at the place other than the factory and to bring inputs from such storage point to their factory for the purpose of availing Modvat credit. Shri Sanjay Aggarwal in his statement recorded on 15-6-1997 admitted about the fact that they neither got any permission for such storage nor did they intimate the CE authorities about the storage of raw materials at a place other th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
