TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Rules, 1944 and gave option to the appellant to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 3. The Collector also ordered confiscation of 1299120 loose unlabelled biris under Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and gave option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 4. The Collector also demanded duty of Rs. 18,78,783.71 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 from M/s. Kamal Biri Factory being Central Excise duty payable on 448129690 biris surreptitiously remanded during the period 17-2-86 to 16-11-86 in contravention of Rules 9(1), 52A, 44; 93 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Collector also imposed personal penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudication the impugned order was passed. 7. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the factory of the appellant was under physical control of the Revenue. In respect of 57 bags found in excess to the R.G.-I record, he submits that 54 bags were duty paid. He submits that 11 bags cleared under G.P.-I No. 34, dated 28-10-88, 25 Bags cleared under G.P.-I No. 34, dated 15-11-88 and 2 bags cleared under G.P.-I No. 32, dated 14-10-88. These 38 bags were brought from the duty paid premises as the goods were getting affected by moisture in duty paid premises. 8. Sixteen bags were returned by the customers on account of inferior quality. On these 16 bags duty was paid at the time of clearance. 9. Remaining three bags were t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ully packed in excess to the recorded balance. The appellant submitted that 38 bags were duty paid, 16 bags were returned by the customers and 3 bags were previous days production. In respect of loose biris the appellant submitted that these were not entered in the record as their Excise clerk was on leave. 15. The Commissioner in the impugned order gave specific finding that the serial number of bags as mentioned in the Gate Passes does not tally with serial number entered in the register. In respect of 16 bags alleged to be returned by the customers. There was nothing on record to show that these were returned by the customers. No intimation to respondents was ever sent regarding return of the goods. Nor the appellants produced any cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 650 held that in the case of allegation of clandestine removal the onus is on the Revenue to prove reliability of private record. When the same is disowned by the manufacturer. The entries can be verifiable by checking with transport companies. Octroi past, consignees and comparison of hand writing etc. The assessee is entitled to benefit of doubt in absence of verification. In the case of Kashmir Vanaspati v. Collector of Customs reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 655, the Tribunal held in the case of clandestine removal, the note book maintained by labourers containing entries is not dependable record in absence of supporting independent evidence. 19. In present case the Revenue is relying on the entries made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
