TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein. 2. Appellant No. 1 is a firm, while appellant No. 2 is its partner. They are engaged in the business of processing textile fabrics. On interception of one truck on 6-2-91, near octroi naka Thane which was loaded with the goods, the Central Excise officers raided the factory premises of the appellants on the plea that they were indulging in clandestine removal of the goods, without payment of duty. The officers collected record from the transporters through whom grey fabrics used to be received by the appellants and on the basis of that record and other documents furnished by the transporters, the officers came to the conclusion that grey fabrics and finished goods were not accounted for, by the appellants. The statements of vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants. No shortage of the raw material or finished goods was detected in the factory of the appellants. Even excepting 61 pieces, no excess stock of processed fabrics was found in the factory of the appellants. Rather, entire fabrics was found entered in lot register and RG-1 of the appellants, at the time of inspection. The Counsel has also contended that alleged evasion being only of additional duty of excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, neither the goods could be confiscated nor any penalty could be imposed in view of the Apex Court judgment in Pioneer Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [2002 (145) E.L.T. A74]. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25,09,055.00 Mtrs. fabrics by the appellants. In the absence of the statements of the suppliers of grey fabrics which were never recorded, no reliance could be placed on the mere copies of the statements furnished by the above said two transporters or other transporters, whose statements had been relied upon in the impugned order. 7. The statement of Jaya Chandran and documents/chits allegedly recovered from his house, as well as the statement of Shri Desai who had been once employees of the appellants, supporting the allegations regarding the receipt of grey fabrics and removal of the processed fabrics by the appellants in a clandestine manner, also could not be used against the appellants as they both were never submitted for cross-exa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty was payable and that too at the time of removal which did not take place. 10. Apart from this, neither the confiscation of the goods nor imposition of penalty could be ordered as the duty involved was not basic central excise duty but only additional duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. In this context, reference can be made to the Apex Court judgment in Pioneer Silk Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein the judgment of High Court of Delhi in that very case reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 507, had been affirmed, holding that no penalty/confiscation could be ordered in respect of fabrics attracting only additional excise duty under the above said Act, 1957. 11. In view of the discussions made abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
