TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id goods they receive inputs falling under Tariff Item 14 and Tariff Item 12 from outside and avail the benefit of proforma credit under Rule 56A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the year 1981, annual stock taking was undertaken under Rule 223A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of the stock of inputs held by the said company in the R.G. 13 (Pt. I) maintained under Rule 56A and shortages were detected against the various items of inputs falling under Tariff Items 14 and 12 of the C.E.T. A show cause notice to the Respondent Company vide C. No. G.L.-28/111/CAL-VIII/81/379, dated 29-3-1982 asking them to show cause as to why the Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 4,113.72 on the quantity of inputs found short in the stock should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our Chem (Black) 0.52 13.016% 12. Barium Potasium Chromate 0.44 Ltr 9.932% 13. Zinc Oxide 0.26 2.260% 14. Oxide Green 0.10 1.176% T.I. No. 12 1. Refined Castor Oil 1.865 MT 4.572% 2. Refined T.S. Oil 7.522 1.989% 3. Stand Oil 14/16P 0.852 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... narayan v. Special Secretary to the Government of India reported in 1981 E.L.T. 171 of the Hon ble High Court. In the said judgment, it was held that it is not possible for the authority to say whether the petitioner has illegally or wilfully removed any material for stock, therefore, it cannot be said that unless such removal is proved, the quantity of loss pleaded for the petitioner must be accepted. He has also pleaded that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is not correct in law and as such the same should be quashed. 4. Shri K.K. Banerjee, the learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the Respondent. He has pleaded that the provision of Rule 56A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 has not been invoked. He has referred to para 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise. He has pleaded that in the said case the Tribunal did not permit the setting up of a new case. Lastly, he has referred to Rule 223A. 5. In reply, Shri A.K. Saha has pleaded that Rule 56A has been duly mentioned in para 1 of the show cause notice and the Respondent s learned Counsel s argument to the effect that there is no mention of Rule 56A in the show cause notice is not tenable. He has further pleaded that wherein the quantities of goods which have not been accounted for under Rule 56A, duty has to be paid by the assessee. Lastly, he has argued that the loss due to leakage and handling can never be considered as loss due to natural causes and hence cannot be condoned ever under Rule 223A. The Revenue has already allowed a ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
