9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis for M/s. Penguin Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Ld. Counsel argued that when the officers visited on investigation found that the appellant had manufactured and supplied certain material to PEPL. The said material had not moved on payment of duty from the appellants premises. The raw materials for manufacture are same was also supplied for PEPL without following any procedure and under simple challan. M/s. PEPL had taken modvat credit of the said raw material. He pointed out at the earlier the matter had reached Tribunal but the same was remanded to the original adjudicating authority vide order in the case of M/s. Penguin Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - 2005 (185) ELT 194 (Tri.-Mumbai) only on the ground that the impugned order was not a speaking order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be up held as imposed. (e) In the facts and circumstance of this case we find that a prima facie case has been made out to come to conclusion that the principals of natural justice have been violated by the adjudicator and the decision impugned herein as arrived is required to be set aside with directions that the notices should be heard and defence reply/materials considered and thereafter a finding arrived on the issues involved in this case. This appeal is therefore required to be allowed as remand to the Commissioner. (f) Since we have come to a finding that the matter requires de novo consideration we refrain from arriving at any findings on other grounds on merits as raised before us to demonstrate the manufacture of the said entiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is primary raw material for the manufacture of transformers and cleared the same without reversing the modvat credit of Rs. 53,281.48 (BED-50,744.36 & SED2,537.12). 3.1. He further argued that they had manufactured and cleared 89,800 Electrical Transformers valued Rs. 1,79,800 to M/s. Penguin Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (PEPL) clandestinely and evaded duty of Rs. 18,879 (BED 17.980 & SED 899). 3.2. He pointed out that during the period of Oct. 90 to 06.08.1991 PEPL did not have the infrastructure to manufacture transformers. Therefore, the modvat credit of Rs. 1,26,051.82 was availed wrongly by them on the inputs, namely, transformers which they had not manufactured in their premises. 3.3. He further argued that the statements given by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the appellant on the job work basis. 3.5. He pointed out that appellant claimed that out of 17,10,947 transformers manufactured by them, quantity of 1,72,462pcs. Were used by PEPL in manufacture of their radio sets. However, in the statement dated 02.12.1991 which was not retracted, Shri Rakesh Garodia stated that PEPL consumed 501800 coils/transformers (purchased from outside parties) against their production of 167214 radio and walkman (the said quantity is shown in their RT 12 return). Hence their claim that PEPL had consumed 172462pcs of transformers manufactured by Pixie Inds. in the manufacture of radio sets out of total qty 1710947 found to be incorrect as not matching with their submission. There is no evidence whatsoever t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... davit dt. 7.8.1991, 16.8.1991 and 2.9.1991. The said affidavits were brought to the notice of Revenue only on 7.10.1991. It is seen that the original statement given by the appellant are incriminating in nature and the entire case has been made out on the basis of the said statements and the record of clearance of goods. When the statement dt. 15.8.1991 was recorded the appellant had already retracted their earlier statement dt. 6.8.1991 by affidavit dt. 7.8.1991 however it was not brought to the notice of the Revenue that the statement was retracted on 15.8.1991. Similarly on 20.9.1991 statement was again recorded where the appellants had retracted their statement dt. 6.8.1991 and 15.8.1991 by affidavit dt. 7.8.1991 and 16.8.199, but the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder also confirms upholds the confiscation of 89,800 Electrical Transformers which were seized from the premises of PEPL. It is seen that the impugned order confirms the duty in respect of such transformers. The said goods were offered for release on redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 90,000/-. We find that since the goods were the cleared without payment of duty, the same are rightly been confiscated. The fine imposed in such circumstances is justified. 4.4. Penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. We find sufficient cause for imposition of such penalty and uphold the same. 4.5. Personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each has been imposed on Shri R.N. Garodia and Shri Arun N. Ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
