9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1985. The other two appellants are the Directors of the appellant's company. The appellants were availing SSI exemption with the MODVAT/CENVAT facility during the year 1999-2000 & 2000-01. During the year 2001-02 appellant did not avail SSI exemption and paid full rate of duty availing Cenvat facility. There was an inspection on 24/07/2001 in the manufacturing premises wherein physical stock was taken. A shortage of HDPE Laminated Circular fabric and Polythene Rolls involving MODVAT credit of Rs. 41,826/- was found, which was admitted and amount voluntarily deposited TR-6 Challan dated 01/08/2001. In this round of litigation before this Tribunal the only dispute which remained for consideration is the duty of Rs. 1,24,638/-, which was found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the procedure as prescribed under Notification No.214/86-CE. It is concluded that actually the appellants are manufacturer on their own account and sold in the market under the guise of job work. Further held that the appellants have failed to take due care to ensure that the conditions of the said Notification was fulfilled. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants have taken me through the pleadings, and they also filed a copy of sample documents in the shape of Paper Book No.2 before this Tribunal. In the invoices of Nevel [Calcutta] Pvt. Ltd., in the column description of goods, they are mentioned as Kraft Board - job work (sent for job work as mentioned, but considered as sale, amount received vide Ledger Entry indicated in Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther states that the matter is only of interpretation and/or bona fide mistake on their part as all the transactions are recorded in the books of accounts maintained in the ordinary course of business. Further, ample evidence on record in support of the contention that they believed that they were doing job work, although the same was found to be not job work in the technical parlance and as required under Notification No.214/86-CE. Accordingly, they do not dispute the duty liability. However there being no mala fide on their part, the learned counsel prays for dropping the penalty. 5. The learned A. R. for Revenue have supported the impugned order. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that there is ample evidence on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
