TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voluntarily depositing the duty amount of ₹ 28,33,303/- towards the textured yarn manufactured and cleared without payment of duty out of the POY received from Hind Silk Mills. Shri Arun Bhartia, Director of the appellant firm in his statement dated 25-10-1994 has confirmed the above facts. Thus the receipt of the said material and consumption of the same in the manufacture of PTY and clearance without payment of duty is clearly established and supported by the relevant records and statements. Appellant’s plea subsequently that these shortages were lying as work-in-progress is clearly an afterthought and has been rightly rejected by the adjudicating authority. In the light of these evidences, the conclusion of the adjudicating au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... today. None represented the appellant. Since the matter is very old and several opportunities were granted which have not been made use of by the appellant, we take up the appeal for consideration and disposal. 3. The appellant M/s. Umesha Textiles Pvt. Ltd. is a texturiser of polyester yarn (PTY) from non-texturised yarn (POY). Intelligence received by the Anti-evasion Directorate revealed evasion of excise duty by the appellant by resorting to suppression of production and clandestine clearance of textured yarn. Therefore, a search was conducted at the factory and office premises of the appellant on 26-7-2004. The search revealed that the appellant had not accounted for 39107 kgs of PTY manufactured out of 39107 kgs. of POY received f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant under Rule 173Q(1) and the land, building, plant and machinery of the appellant was confiscated with an option to redeem the same on a payment of ₹ 5 lakhs. Penalties of ₹ 2 lakhs each was imposed on the Directors of the appellant firm under Rule 209A of the said Rules. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 4. In their appeal memorandum, it has been urged that the finding of the adjudicating authority that the appellant failed to substantiate their plea regarding non-availability of physical stock of 59,915.460 kgs. of POY shown in their Form IV register is improper and baseless. It is submitted that the stock declaration of the said quantity of POY was on account of outstanding DEEC obligation as on 1-3-9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave also confirmed the sale of the said quantity of POY to the appellant. However, they did not account for these purchases in their books of account and the Director of the appellant firm has admitted to this. Similarly the sale of 14353 kgs of POY has been confirmed by M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. which again has not been entered in the Form IV Register of the appellant. Similarly a quantity of 17190 kgs of POY were found short at the time of stock taking which was done in the presence of the appellant s directors. The subsequent explanation that they were lying as work-in-progress is only an afterthought. Accordingly he submits that the impugned order is sustainable in law and merits to be upheld. 6. We have carefully considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has been confirmed by the supplier vide letter dated 6-9-1994. However, the receipt of the said material has not been accounted for in the Form IV register or in the RG 23A Part I II register. The stock was also not found during physical checks. Shri Arun Bhartia in his statement dated 12-12-1994 has admitted to receipt of 14353 kgs. from M/s. Reliance Industries and texturising the same and clearance without entering in any central excise records and without payment of duty. He was also not able to co-relate the disposal of 13931.086 kgs. of texturised yarn with any duty paying documents. Thus this allegation also stands clearly established based on records and statements. 6.3 As regards the balance quantity of 17190.98 kgs., the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Asst. Collector of Customs v. Govindasamy Raghupathy [1998 (98) E.L.T. 50 (Mad.)] refers. There is also no retraction of any of the statements. Statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is a valid piece of evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act as held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal [1970 AIR 1940]. 6.5 Once the charge of suppression of production and clandestine removal stand established, penal consequences under Rule 173Q automatically follows. Therefore, imposition of penalty on the appellant firm under Rule 173Q(1) and confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery under Rule 173Q(2) are mandate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
