9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apart from penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 173Q. The goods seized were confiscated but the appellants were given an option to if redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The appellants strongly challenge the impugned order. 2. Shri K. Parameswaran, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri Ganesh Havanur, SDR appeared for the Revenue. 3. The learned Advocate advanced the following arguments :- (1) The production of electronic chokes has been arrived at essentially based on only one raw material namely, Ballast covers (which is the cheapest component) by ignoring other essential components such as transformer, etc. Even the purchase price of the said Ballast covers is only around R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f raw materials. This assumption is unwarranted when the sale proprietrix furnished evidence to show that the amount has been drawn for different activities like purchase of shed, machinery, personal purposes, payment of salaries, servicing of chokes, etc. (8) The other documentary evidence furnished such as Sales Tax Returns, Income-tax Returns, Service Income, material lying at Kozhikode Unit, etc. have all been totally omitted to be taken into account thereby resulting in demanding duty based on assumption and presumption. (9) The allegations of payment made in cash of one transaction with Krishna Electronics on 13-7-1996 is also factually incorrect and is only an assumption as explained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) E.L.T. 76]. Further he relied on several decisions including the following :- (a) Hilton Tobaccos Ltd. v. C.C.E., [2005 (183) E.L.T. 378]. (b) Sapthagiri Cements Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., [2005 (183) E.L.T. 385]. 4.The learned SDR reiterated the points in the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal. 5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The appellants an SSI Unit manufactured electronic chokes, emergency lights, etc. The main allegation against them is that they manufactured and cleared the goods clandestinely without payment of duty. In arriving at the clandestine production of chokes, the adjudicating authority has taken into account the number of Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence of buyers receiving the clandestinely cleared goods. There is also no evidence of excess electricity consumption. Moreover, the Revenue started investigation in 1997. On the basis of investigations, the Revenue proceeded against the appellant's unit at Kozhikode and the adjudicating authority in his order dated 6-8-98 dropped the proceedings. On the same set of facts, another show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 19-2-99 alleging clandestine production. There is also no evidence for suppression of facts with an intention to evade Central Excise duty. Hence, longer period is also not invokable. The appellants themselves have produced the Income-tax Returns, Sales Tax Returns, etc. to the Department. No parallel set of invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
