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 (7) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the petitioner when the Central Excise Department has already fixed the norms of consumption of 1000 units of steel ingots in the case of induction furnace." 2.A few facts as relevant for the decision of these cases may be briefly noticed. 3.In pursuance to an information that the petitioners were indulging in suppression of production and clandestine removal of the steel ingots, a surveillance was kept on the activities of the company. On October 11, 1990, a truck bearing No. PUR 7537 was intercepted. The driver produced a Central Excise Gate Pass No. 515 showing the removal of 14.230 MTs of steel ingots. He and various other persons were questioned. The officers visited the factory premises and took certain record into possession. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the Commissioner for the grant of further opportunity. The matter was decided by the Commissioner vide order dated August 17, 1995. A copy of the order has been produced as Annexure P.5 with the petition. This order was again challenged before the Tribunal. In fact, separate appeals were filed by the company and its two Directors. The three appeals were consolidated and were dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated December 24, 1997. A copy of the order has been produced as Annexure P.7. Then, the petitioners filed application for reference to this Court under Section 35G(1). These applications and also the petitions for stay of recovery were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated August 25, 1998. A copy of the order is at Ann .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as intercepted on October 11, 1990. On demand, the truck driver had produced the Central Excise Gate Pass No. 515. It indicated the removal of 14.230 MTs of steel ingots from the factory premises at 0850 hours. On being questioned, Wirsa Singh - the driver had admitted that a consignment of ingots on the Gate Pass had already been transported. The said gate pass was being used for transporting the second consignment of ingots. Shri Jeet Singh - the Security Supervisor of the petitioner-company had admitted that "on the directions of the owners of the factory, he had not recorded the removal of the consignment of steel ingots loaded in Truck No. PUR 7537 and cleared from the factory at 1500 hours on 11.10.90". Similarly, the statements of va .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ided the matter. It has recorded a firm finding in paragraph 36 of its order that "the goods were being clandestine1y removed....." Nothing was pointed out by the Counsel to show that this finding is incorrect. However, the main emphasis of the Counsel was based on the appreciation of evidence relating to the consumption of electricity. In fact, this is the central issue in this case as the question raised by the petitioners is directed towards this dispute only. 13.The issue relating to the consumption of electricity has also been considered by the Tribunal. It has noticed the report of the manufacturer of the equipment installed at the petitioners' factory viz. M/s Hindustan Brown Boveri Limited. The Tribunal has also taken note of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yal contended that in the show cause notice dated July 28, 1997, it had been alleged that the petitioners were consuming 1061 units of electricity for producing 1 MT of steel ingots. Thus, the figure of production as found by the Tribunal cannot be accepted as correct. 18.We are unable to accept this contention. The dispute relates to the period from the year 1988 to 1990. By 1997, the equipment had become seven years older. Its efficacy was bound to be reduced. The show cause notice issued after the lapse of seven years cannot mean that the consumption in 1990 has been erroneously fixed by the Tribunal. 19.No other point was raised. 20.In view of the above, we are satisfied that the order passed by the Tribunal is in conformity with .....

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