9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1993 alleging clandestine removal of 636.525 MT of MS Ingots and demanding duty of Rs. 4,14,375/- for the said quantity of clearances and also asking the appellants to show cause why 6.950 MT of Ingots found in excess in their factory on 15-7-1992 valued at Rs. 55,021/- should not be confiscated. 3. The appellants contested the allegations and denied any clandestine removal by them. They had sought the production of original or certified copies of ST-39 forms relied on by the Department in making the allegation relating to clandestine removal. The appellants had submitted that the originals of the attested photo copies of ST-39 forms relied upon in the SCN had not been shown to them for inspection and the documents actually shown to them for inspection were neither attested copies nor legible copies. They, therefore, submitted that the entire case had been fabricated against them. According to the appellants the Collector had rejected all their submissions and confirmed the order of confiscation of 6.950 MT of MS Ingots but had given an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- apart from duty demand and penalty. 4. Shri Naveen Mallick, ld. Counsel, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied the fact that a quantity of 6.950 MT of MS Ingots was found in excess of the recorded balance in RG 1 when the appellants' factory was visited by the Central Excise officers and stock verification done. Further, investigations and examination of the record of the Sales Tax Check Barriers showed that the appellants had transported MS Ingots through the said Check Posts. Attested Copies of ST-39 forms filed at the Check Post by the appellants for transporting MS Ingots showed that they had cleared consignments through the check post without payment of duty. He also drew attention to the statements given by Shri S.C. Jain, Director of the appellant firm on 25-8-1992 and 29-8-1992 in which Shri Jain had failed to explain as to how the same challan was used more than once. As regards the contention of the appellants that there was no other evidence against the appellants other than the attested photo copies of ST-39 forms which they had disputed, the Collector had observed that apart from the ST-39 forms filed by the appellants at Didhara Sales Tax Check Post, the record of the said Sales Tax Check Post also contained the name of the appellant unit, signature of the Truck Driver, de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed through Didhara Sales Tax Check Post on 6-5-1991 at 0.10 A.M. vide Entry No. 396 of the Check Post as per ST-39 filed therein. It is alleged in the SCN that the appellants had again cleared 11.635 MT of MS Ingots under the same delivery challan No. 28 of 6-5-1991 through the same Truck No. DIG 3232 which also passed through Didhara Sales Tax Check Post at 10 P.M. on 6-5-1991 vide ST-39 form No. 444 recorded in the above Sales Tax Check Post. The Deptt. had, therefore, concluded that the quantity of 11.635 MT of MS Ingots had crossed Didhara Check Post at 0.10 A.M. without Central Excise Gate Pass since no GP 1 had been issued on 5-5-1991. SCN had also referred to the statement given by Shri Suresh Chander Jain, Director on 25-8-1992 in which he was unable to explain as to why GP 1s were not used for certain clearances recorded at Didhara Sales Tax Check Post. Shri Jain had further stated that though MS Ingots were cleared from the factory under cover of GP 1s, the ST-39 forms were not being prepared by their factory staff and as such he could not give any explanation for the discrepancy. Further, he stated that the appellants cleared MS Ingots from their factory under cover o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... document shall be deemed to be also a document for the purposes of the Act and the Rules and shall be admissible in any proceedings without further proof or production of the original as evidence of any contents of any original or facts stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible, in this connection, he had also produced at the time of the hearing copy of the attached list of documents. As regards the modus operandi of the appellants the ld. JDR had referred to paragraph 10 of the impugned order explaining in detail the evidence before the adjudicating officer. The Commissioner had observed that ST-39 forms filed at Didhara Sales Tax Check Post contained the name of the appellants, signature of the truck drivers, description of the goods as MS Ingots, the place at which the goods were consigned from and the place to which they were consigned (Bhiwadi to Delhi). All the three trucks were owned by the assessee. The Director of the Company Shri S.C. Jain had also in his statement admitted that three trucks were used for transport of MS Ingots and their Truck No. DIG 3370 was used by them for transportation of ingots from Bhiwadi to Delhi and the said trucks were never ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e any denial of principles of natural justice on account of the original copy of the ST-39 not being made available to them. We also do not find that the two cases relied upon by the appellants, namely, Gurpreet Rubber Industries case, (supra) and Calicut Rubber Products case, (supra), would advance the case of the present appellants since the fact/situations in those cases were very different from the present one and since the ratio thereof does not apply to a case where documentary evidence show two clearances, one on payment of duty, and another without payment of duty. We are also satisfied that the Commissioner's findings based on the instances referred to in paragraph 10 of the impugned order clearly go to establish the modus operandi adopted by the appellants for clandestine removal of M.S. Ingots. It is pertinent to note that the Director of the appellant firm could not explain as to how the same Challan was used more than once. As regards the excess quantity of 6.950 M.T. of MS Ingots also, the appellants had not been able to give any explanation excepting that the said quantity had reached marketable stage and was about to be entered in the RG 1 Register. As has been held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
