TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d removed dutiable cone yarn in the guise of exempted variety namely, hank yarn, during October, 1998 to June, 2000 and irregularly availed MODVAT credit in respect of viscose staple fibre content used in the manufacture of exempted yarn. Accordingly, the notice proposed to demand differential duty of Rs. 1,05,58,160/- towards removal of cone yarn in the guise of hank yarn and Rs. 3,93,222/- towards irregularly availed MODVAT credit. The notice also proposed to charge interest on the amounts proposed to be demanded besides imposing penalties under various provisions cited in the notice and further proposed to confiscate the land, building, plant and machinery. The applications were admitted vide Order No. 28/2002-C.Ex., dated 11-10-2002 wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and to submit actual findings on the disputed documents signed by the applicant as well as the Revenue. 3. The disputed invoices are enumerated category-wise in Annexes B, G, I J of DGCEI s comments dated 9-10-2002. Out of these 4 annexes, Annexe-I relates to 55 invoices figuring in the diary of Srinivasa Rao, the applicant company s employee. The demand in respect of these 55 invoices amounting to Rs. 13,91,466.55 stands admitted as stated earlier. The joint reconciliation report dated 4-2-2005 contains versions of Revenue and the applicant but does not really reconcile the dispute. 4. Vide letter dated 6-5-2005, the applicant company while relying on the RG 1 Register, and production sheets to contest the allegation of non-manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year ending 2004-05 depicting their financial troubles with a total loss of Rs. 12.28 crores as on date. Accordingly they made a request for giving suitable instalments for payment of the balance amount payable by them. 5.1 We have examined the contents of the Show Cause Notice, applications filed and the submissions made by both the sides from time to time carefully. Since the applicant company has admitted duty liability in respect of 205 invoices out of 302, we are not going to discuss the facts relating to these admitted invoices. With reference to the remaining disputed invoices, Annexe-B of the Revenue s comments dated 9-10-2002 enumerates 47 invoices involving duty liability of Rs. 22,48,051.28. The department relied on various pi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany. As the date of receipt of the consignment on the said receipts happens to be one day subsequent to the date of invoices issued by the applicant company, the Revenue feels that the receipts given by SYMA are co-relatable to the invoices issued by the applicant company. The receipts issued by SYMA however do not show any material particulars like consignor, invoice No. or lorry No. with which they can be co-related to the 23 impugned invoices. Merely because some of the consignments admitted by the applicant company elsewhere on different grounds also have the SYMA receipts, it is not correct to arrive at a generalized conclusion that all the 23 invoices mentioned in Annexe-G are relatable to the applicant company through the receipts i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, a confessional statement has to be corroborated in order to rely on the same. It may be noted that the entire case of the Revenue stems up from the invoices identified by Shri Srinivasa Rao, some supported by corroborative evidence and some not so corroborated. The invoices enumerated in Annexes G J pertain to the later category. 5.3 The demand proposed in respect of 27 invoices vide Annexe-J is based on allegations like issue of delivery advices orally and destruction of delivery advices, etc. In other words this part of demand is based on overall conduct of the applicant company but not based on any clinching evidence. The period of the 27 impugned invoices is 10/98 to 3/2000. This period is prior to the period explained by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so far Rs. 59,55,252/-. Therefore, the balance duty payable is Rs. 33,03,351/-. 6.2 In view of position discussed in the preceding paragraphs, we find that the applicant has come forward to admit and pay the duty payable by him for the period of settlement and has cooperated during the proceedings despite his financial constraints. Accordingly, his request for immunity merits consideration. However, in view of considerable delay in payment of duty due we are not inclined to grant full immunity from interest. 7. Accordingly, the case is settled under Section 32 F(7) as per the terms and conditions given below : - (a) The duty is settled at Rs. 92,58,603/-. Since the applicant has paid so far Rs. 59,55,252/- he should pay the balanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
