TMI Blog1986 (6) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9021/- was not available in the store room. (iii) The following beltings of value of Rs. 18,772.92 p. were found in the factory in excess of the balance in RG-1. (a) 11 Rolls 1,214 metres belting (b) 30 Pieces 195.5 (c) 34 Pieces 1,760 Semi-used belting . (iv) Belting of the value of Rs. 28,834/- had been cleared from the factory without accounting in Excise records and without payment of duty, as evidenced from Bill Book Nos. 4 5 recovered from the factory premises. (v) 325 pieces of V-Belts of the value of Rs. 23,984.50 p. had been manufactured by the factory withuot accounting them in excise records and without submission o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully manufactured they need not be entered in R.G.I. account. With reference to recovery of documents, he stated that the Department relied on these documents for its allegation that over Rs. 65,000/- worth of goods were illicitly removed from the factory. All these documents were not reliable for the reasons mentioned by the appellants before the Collector and later before the Board. He submitted that the Appellants filed affidavits before the Collector in connection with the alleged documents but the Collector did not rebut these affidavits nor did he accept them. 5. The Learned Advocate further submitted that the seizure was made without reasonable belief and therefore offended the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and they could not raise this ground for the first time before the Tribunal. 8. The Learned SDR pointed that the allegations made about 325 pieces of V-Belts was correct. Referring to the Collector s order he stated that recovery memo showed that all the 325 V-Belts were found packed separately in packages with the size of each V-Belt marked on each package. Therefore, the subsequent assertions by the appellants that these V-Belts were in loose heaps and that they were placed in packages by the Central Excise staff were incorrect. The Learned SDR argued that the V-Belts were in huge quantity and such huge quantity could not be merely a trial production. Further the V-Belts, even if they were not upto the standard, were liable to duty, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estha v. U.O.I. [1987 (27) E.L.T. 369 (Cal.)]. 12. We have examined these judgments. In Jenson Enterprises v. Collector, Customs, Cochin [1987 (28) E.L.T. 346 Madras], the court held that the seizure and confiscation were quashable when seizure was made without entertaining a reasonable belief. The High Court of Madras was, in that case, considering a situation in which goods for which let export order was passed were seized. In the circumstances of that case there could not have been reasonable belief. In the present matter Central Excise Officers visited the Appellant s factory, checked the accounts, verified the stock physically and then made the seizure. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Central Excise Officers could not have ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Narender Pal partner of the firm. We have examined the statement wherein Shri Narender Pal deposing that the machinery in the factory was incomplete and it was a trial stage and that the pieces manufactured were not upto the standard required. Therefore, we cannot accept the arguments of the Learned Counsel that the pieces were not fully manufactured . Factually, this argument is at variance of the statement recorded. In this view we uphold the findings of the Board in this regard. 15. In respect of the rubber belting (176 Metres) the claim of the Appellants is that this beltingwas received back from customers and was mixed with non-duty paid beltings. This is the plea of the Appellants as recorded in the Board s Order. In the Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m from saying so in his statement. Further, the Board noted that the recovery was made on 12-11-1975 and the Appellants neither mentioned anything about them in the recovery memo, nor did they write to the Department prior to a lapse of 4 months after the seizure. 18. The Appellants plea is that even the place of the recovery of the books is improbable. According to the record the books were recovered from roof of the factory. This was according to the appellants accessible to any one. They further pleaded that the Appellants were not allowed to scrutinise the books at the time of seizure and were asked to sign the recovery memo. 19. We have considered his arguments. The Department could have and should have made enquiries to find out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
