Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (11) TMI 818

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h sixty-four thousand two hundred nineteen and paise thirty-eight) against the main appellant company, M/s. Sonex Chemicals and a total penalty of Rs. 2,01,218.88 (Rupees two lakh one thousand two hundred and eighteen and paise eighty-eight) has been imposed upon it. Another penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 (Rupees twenty-five thousand) has been imposed on Shri Ranjit Bakshi Gupta, authorised signatory of the appellant company, under the provisions of Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows :- 1.1 The appellants, M/s. Sonex Chemicals are engaged in the manufacture of Acid Slurry and its by-product namely Spent Acid classifiable under Chapters 34 and 28 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d cleared by the appellant company during the period from December, 1997 to February, 1998, without payment of duty, should not be demanded from them under the provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; that as to why the goods found in excess should not be confiscated; that as to why an amount of Rs. 27,420.50 (Rupees twenty-seven thousand four hundred and twenty and paise fifty) being the credit of duty availed under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of the inputs found short, should not be recovered from the appellant company under the provisions of Rule 57-I read with Section 11A; and that as to why penalty should not be imposed upon both the capti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tant for the appellants also submitted that the authorities below have mainly relied upon the expression - To whom sold - and has come to a facile conclusion that the goods mentioned in the note-book, were actually sold. By relying upon various decisions, he argued that in cases of clandestine removal, the onus lies very heavily upon the Revenue Authorities to prove beyond doubt that the goods have, in fact, been cleared without payment of duty. The Revenue has not conducted any enquiries in respect of the alleged consignments mentioned in the said note-book in order to prove whether the goods were actually despatched to parties. In the absence of such proper enquiry and investigation, only on the basis of the rough entries in a note-book .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - Quantity sold and stock . Shri Ranjit Bakshi Gupta in his statement dated 27-3-98 had admitted, ..there were some sales which missed C. Ex. Invoices as because I am a lone man and after I have to go here and there for business purposes and subsequently, payment of duty was not done . Additional Commissioner has also taken note of some of the letters written by the appellant company s customers cancelling the orders earlier placed by them, and has rightly concluded that such letters were an after thought inasmuch as they were prepared on a subsequent date after visit of the Central Excise Officers. The appellants have also not been able to prove their stand that the entries made in the said register are only in respect of the provision .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... availed the Modvat credit. They have failed to advance any reason for such shortages and therefore, confirmation of demand of duty equivalent to the Modvat credit availed on such shortages, is in accordance with law. 4.2 As regards the goods found in excess than the recorded balance, the same have been confiscated under the provision of Rule 173Q and a fine of Rs. 5657.07 (Rupees five thousand six hundred fifty-seven and paise seven) has been appropriated as redemption fine from the Security Deposit made by the appellant company at the time of provisional release of the goods. I find that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C. Ex., Ahmedabad v. Continental Chemicals reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 116 (Tribunal) = 2001 (46) R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates