1999 (9) TMI 359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Officers on 8-11-1990. The Additional Collector also confiscated the seized copper scrap and aluminium scrap with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-. He had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants. 2. Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Advocate, submitted that the proper verification of the stock was not done by the officers; that the physical stock was lying in the factory; that officers found 1 M.T. of scrap on the shop floor which was compared with the recorded balance of waste and scrap in RG-1 which was 62.685 M.T.; that this quantity was scattered throughout the premises of the factory which was not looked into by the officers. He, further, submitted that officers had seized 80 M.T. of scrap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellants' representative could not give any satisfactory reply; that on the request of Advocate for the appellants before the Additional Collector, the Superintendent of Central Excise was again deputed to reverify the stock of waste and scrap of iron and steel on 2/3-12-1991 and they reported that they had not found any physical balance of scrap of iron and steel as averred by the appellants. He further submitted that the Additional Collector had confirmed the demand of duty only after reverification. He relied upon the decision in the case of Uptron India Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1994 (70) E.L.T. 155 (T) in which it was held that if satisfactory explanation for the shortage detected is not forthcoming, duty is demandable. The learned SDR also re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was generated out of aluminium goods in respect of which Modvat credit of duty was not availed of; that the copper scrap was exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 172/84 and 182/84. This position has not been rebutted by the Department. In fact we observe from the impugned order that the Range Superintendent had stated that the appellants had not availed any Modvat credit on aluminium goods. Further, the Additional Collector himself mentioned in the impugned order that they would be entitled for exemption in respect of copper scrap. Taking into consideration these facts, we vacate the confiscation order in respect of copper and aluminium scrap. But for this modification, the appeal filed by the appellants is rejected.
Cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X