TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Appellant. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Sodium Silicate (SH 2839.10 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act). An officer of Central Excise, authorized for investigations, visited their factory and conducted verification of records, whereupon it was found that the appellants had cleared 353.735 MTs of Sodium Silicate valued at Rs. 15,91,808/- to M/s. Vijay Detergent Products (P) Ltd., Palakkad without payment of duty under 36 invoices during the period 5-7-2002 to 7-9-2002. The officer collected the said invoices and another set of invoices from the appellants and also recorded their statements. A register s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both sides. Ld. counsel for the appellants submitted that the so-called second set of invoices were only invoices raised by the appellants, under a job work contract for collecting labour charges from M/s. Vijay Detergent Products (P) Ltd., Palakkad for conversion of Sodium Silicate (solid) to Sodium Silicate Solution. Counsel also produced copies of all these 36 invoices covering the period from 5-7-2002 to 6-9-2002. He submitted that the above fact had not been considered in the impugned order. It was pointed out that the price of Sodium Silicate at the relevant time was about Rs. 4,000 per MT and that the labour charge collected by the appellants was at the rate of Rs. 350/- per MT as evidenced by the above commercial invoices. Was it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in para-2(i) of Notification No. 214/86-ibid would lie on the raw material-supplier. Counsel also contended that the private register maintained by the Factory Manager was not to be given evidentiary value for the purpose of finding clandestine removal of goods. The statements of the Managing Partner and Factory Manager would not by themselves constitute conclusive evidence of clandestine removal of goods. In support of this argument, ld. counsel relied on Premium Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 165 (Tri.-Del). On the other hand, ld. JDR relied on the decision in K. Manickam v. CCE, Coimbatore - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 371 (Tri.) in support of his argument that the finding of clandestine removal of goods was sustainable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not complied with by the appellants. The appellants have claimed that the Sodium Silicate Solution returned after job work to their customer was removed by the latter on payment of duty for home consumption from their factory. This claim has not been contested by the Revenue. In the circumstances, the appellants were eligible for the benefit of the Notification subject to the surviving condition that the raw material-supplier gave an undertaking to the Asst. Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the appellants factory to the effect that the goods would be removed (by the raw material-supplier) on payment of duty for home consumption. The demand of duty is consequential to non-fulfillment of this co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
