9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds involving Excise duty of Rs. 7,02,610/- without issue of invoice and without payment of duty; (4) Suppressed production of 23,187 kgs. involving duty of Rs. 2,20,276/- in their statutory records and removed without payment of duty. (5) could not account for shortage of 47 MTs of acrylic plastic scrap against which they had availed Modvat credit of Rs. 1,83,206/-. (6) availed inadmissible credit of Rs. 72,97,835/- in contravention of Rules 57A and 57G of the Central Excise Rules. 2. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants proposing recovery of duty, proposing recovery of Modvat credit, proposing imposition of penalty and proposing levy of interest and confiscation of land, plant, machinery and building. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demands, denied Modvat credit and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 85,73,522/- under Section 11AC and ordered recovery of interest under section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. one lakh each on the other two appellants under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. Hence these appeals. 3 We have heard Shri J.P. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic sheets were despatched from the factory. According to the Department, the difference between this figure and the RG 1 entry of finished goods represents clandestine removal. The appellants state that the production report includes wastage and rejection but are liable to substantiate their contention with reference to any records maintained by them. We find that Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Director of the appellant company, in his statement dated 2-2-1998 has admitted duty liability of this quantity of 73,959 kgs. which is the difference between RG. 1 figure of 57,158 kgs. and the production report figure of 1,31,118 kgs. We therefore, hold that this charge has been proved against the appellants and uphold the duty demand covered hereunder. IV. Suppression of production of 23,187 kgs. involving duty of Rs. 2,20,276/- : This charge is based upon the Daily Progress Report and Daily Report. Production sheets for the period 3-12-1997 to 19-12-1997. The Daily Progress Report shows receipt and consumption of raw materials while the Daily report shows the number of sheets and the weight of the sheets produced on a particular day. The General Manager of the company when asked for his expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of statements of Shri S.P. Singh, General Manager and Shri Sanjay Aggarwal, Director of the appellant company and we hold that the material on record is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that goods were manufactured and cleared clandestinely by the appellants. The plea of the assessee that the demand for goods shown to have been cleared on 16-12, 18-12 and 19-12-1997 will amount to duplication of demand since the confirmation of duty demand for the period 3-12 to 19-12-1997 will include the demand for 16-12, 18-12 and 19-12-1997, is not tenable because while the demand for the period 3-12 to 19-12-1997 is on goods produced during the period, the demand for 16-12, 18-12 and 19-12-1997 represents the goods removed on those dates and there is no evidence brought forth by the appellants that the goods cleared on those three days were actually manufactured on those dates. V. Shortage of 47 MTs of acrylic plastic scrap against which the appellants availed Modvat credit on Rs. 1,83,203/- : Shortage of the above quantity is reflected in the panchnama dated 20-9-1997 which was prepared in the presence of two independent witnesses and physical stock taking was also conducted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had been availing the credit on the basis of documents only without fulfilling requirements of Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 according to which no credit shall be taken by the manufacturer unless the inputs are received in the factory under the cover of an invoice issued under Rule 520A or 100% EOU or Bill of Entry. It is further noticed that in this case the assessee had neither taken the Commissioner's permission for storage of the inputs at the place other than the factory and to bring inputs from such storage point to their factory for the purpose of availing Modvat credit. Shri Sanjay Aggarwal in his statement recorded on 15-6-1997 admitted about the fact that they neither got any permission for such storage nor did they intimate the CE authorities about the storage of raw materials at a place other than the factory. Scrutiny of the records revealed that during the period 1995-96 to 1997-98, the party received 17,31,444 kgs. of raw materials at D-19, SMA Delhi as per details in the Annexure C to this notice and availed Modvat credit against the documents at their factory at Sonepat". 5. If the assessees, submission is that goods although initially ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
