TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re iron and steel products; that on 8-6-96, Central Excise Officers intercepted a Truck No. MP 23B 7024 carrying CTD Bars weighing 13.390 MT valued at Rs. 1,72,731/- at R.T.O. Check Post, Chincola; that driver, Harjinder Singh informed the Officers that the CTD Bars were loaded from the Appellant No. 1 s premises; that the Officers seized both the goods and Truck as the goods were removed from the factory permises without payment of duty; that the search of the factory premises of the Appellant No. 1, revealed - (i) Shortage of CTD Bars 77.633 MT; (ii) Excess of 2.235 MT Rounds, 31.316 MT of Ribbed Bars and 2.804 MT of M.S. angles; (iii) Shortage of 167.616 MT of modvatable inputs viz., Bloom, cutting of bloom, slab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paration of invoice and debitting of duty and the goods were urgently required by M/s. Shri Venkatesh Steel Traders for supplying to their customers; that the Department should take a flexible view particularly when the duty involved had been deposited as per the demand made. 4. He also mentioned that ribbed bars are their intermediate products and not the final products; that rounds are also CTD rounds and are accounted for against CTD Bars only; that ribbed bars and rounds are not accounted for nor marketed separately and are accounted for and sold as CTD bars only; that hence excess of these products be set-off against the shortage of CTD Bars. He, further, mentioned that the Department has converted the shortage of 167.616 MT of raw m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re transporting CTD Bars on the basis of documents provided to them and did not have knowledge regarding the liability to confiscation of the seized goods; that in these circumstances Rule 209A is not attracted; that Shri Ratan Singh, owner of the Truck, was not in any way involved in removal of the goods from the factory; that penalty under Rule 209A cannot be imposed upon him since he has neither dealt with the goods nor had knowledge regarding the liability to confiscation. 6. Countering the arguments, Shri U. Raja Ram, learned D.R., submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that the CTD Bars seized from the Truck were cleared without payment of Central Excise duty and without the cover of invoice; that this fact has been admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory of production without payment of duty and without the cover of invoice. Accordingly the goods are liable for confiscation and penalty is imposable on the Appellant No. 1. The learned SDR has referred to Panchnama dated 9-6-96 wherein it is clearly mentioned that Shri Sohan Lal Singhania was entirely satisfied of the method adopted for stock verification and further the Panchas were also fully satisfied. It is not the case of Appellant No. 1 that they challenged the shortage/excess found during the stock verification immediately with the Department. The Panchnama has been duly signed by Shri Sohan Lal Singhania. In his statement recorded on 9-6-96 also he did not dispute about the stock verification. In view of this, their contention ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of all other Appellants, we observe that penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not imposable in absence of any material to establish that they were knowing or had reason to believe that the goods were liable for confiscation. There is nothing on record to show that Venkatesh Steel Traders had requested the Appellant No. 1 to remove the impugned CTD bars without payment of duty or Shri Sai Freight Carrier and Ratan Singh were concious of the non-duty paid nature of the goods. For the same reason, Truck No. MP 23B 7024 is also not liable for confiscation. 9. Accordingly, we hold as under : (i) The demand of duty of excise against the Appellant No. 1 is confirmed. (ii) The confiscation of ribb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
