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

1997 (4) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the unit by wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts and appropriating amount irregularly availed credit of and imposing penalty of Rs. 1000/-. 2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of head-lights and accessories thereof falling under sub-heading 8512.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short, CETA). In the course of surprise visit by Anti Evasion staff, the following discrepancies were found - (1) 846 units of headlights were found in excess. (2) There was shortage of 787 units of headlights of another model cleared without payment of duty. (3) There were suppression of the fact that in supplying headlights to M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, bulbs were also fitted and the value of such bulbs was no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d had not been incorporated in the RG1 register before the surprise visit on 16-6-1987. In the circumstances, the challenge against the excess found has to fail. 4. The Panchnama recites that 787 units of another model of headlight was found short. It was also alleged that the goods had been cleared without payment of duty. In reply to the show cause notice, appellant stated that 338 units were broken and the broken pieces were lying in the bonded store room and 320 units were in the finishing room as can be seen from the entry made in column 15 of the RG1 register and this had not been taken into account. Fifty pieces were said to have been lying separately for export. This stand was also not taken in the letter dated 23-6-1987. No other .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , producer or licensee of a warehouse - (a) removes any excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of these rules; or (b) does not account for any excisable goods manufactured, produced or stored by him; or (d) contravenes any of the provisions of these rules with intent to evade payment of duty, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation ............" The allegation in the instant case was that the excess of goods was not on account of removal of excisable goods in contravention of rules but that the manufacturer failed to account for excisable goods produced or stored by him. Rule 173Q(l)(b) was not considered in the aforesaid decisions. In this case 846 units of headlights manufactured by the appellant had no .....

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 period covered by the demand. Appellant has not produced either price list or copy of the contract or purchase order in force during the bulk of the period under consideration. Therefore, it is not known whether relevant purchase order contained a clause similar to the one contained in the order dated 21-4-1987. 8. Heading 85.12 of the Tariff refers to electrical lights. In ordinary parlance, electrical light must include bulb also. An article which has no bulb cannot in ordinary parlance be regarded as electrical light. This was how the party has dealt with the matter also. There is no dispute that at the time of clearance, headlights contained bulbs. It is therefore clear that bulbs are integral parts of the headlights so cleare .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... such provision but he was not able to point out any such. His attempt was to show that violation of Rule 57A enabled imposition of penalty and the appropriation must have been by way of imposition of penalty. We are not able to agree. There is a separate penalty imposed on the appellant. Even otherwise, appropriation of credit wrongly taken is something foreign to the scope of the statute or the Rules. In any event, such appropriation could not have been made after the manufacturer reversed the credit entry. This part of the order cannot stand. 11. The last contention urged by the Learned Counsel for the appellant is that since the show cause notice was issued on 10-12-1987 in respect of the period from 16-1-1986 to 17-6-1987, part .....

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