TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.S. Chakrabarty, managing director, and K.M. Ved, production manager were recorded on that day and the next day. Trivedi acknowledged the seizure of a file bearing word "Kamal" from the table. He agreed that the entries in the papers in the file relating to dispatch of cotton fabrics manufactured by the appellants which contain the words "W/O" indicated goods cleared without payment of duty. Ved, the production manager, stated that he looked after the entire production of the company and maintenance of excise records and that he checked the records maintained by the clerk staff. He agreed that he had made the entries in the diary of 1987 recovered from the factory. He explained that entries in the diary containing the words "w/o" and "without" referred to goods cleared without payment of duty. He said the same with regard to dispatch of goods under three lorry receipts. Chakrabarty, in his statement recorded on 2-8-1987 said that he confirmed the correctness of the depositions made by Ved and Trivedi. It is contended that these persons retracted the statements shortly after they were made, alleging that they were recorded "under pressure". The Collector however records that state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals. 4.The notice to show cause contains the details of the duty recovered in four Annexures. Annexure A relates to duty demand on the basis of three lorry receipts showing dispatch of the goods, for which there are no entries found in the statutory records maintained by the company. Annexure B seeks to demand duty on the basis of the diary and other documents seized from the company to which we have already alluded. Annexures C and D proposed to demand duty consequent upon the demands in Annexures A and B. This demand arises on the view that, by including in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the assessee, the goods on which duty is demanded in Annexures A and B, it is no longer entitled to the benefit of notification 273/86, since the value of clearances in the preceding year has exceeded the limit of Rs. 15.00 lacs. 5.The contention of the appellant with regard to this is that the statement of the persons concerned having been retracted cannot be relied upon. The Collector in his order does not deal with this point at all. The evidence in support of the retractions is contained in Annexure D to the appeal of the assessee. These are letters stated to have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person would protest about. For these reasons, we are unable to accept this contention. 8.The contention that the Collector has not passed a speaking order is entirely unacceptable. The Collector had devoted substantial amount of reasoning and gone into details in coming to his conclusion. 9.We will now turn to each of the annexures. It is contended that the demand for duty in Annexure A cannot be confirmed for the following reasons. There was no seizure of the premises of the customers. The employees or partners of the transport agency had, in reply to cross examination, said that freight is recovered from the consignee and therefore there was no claim for short delivery from the consignee to whom the goods were consigned. Annexure B demands duty on goods covered by three lorry receipts. Concerned persons of the transport company had initially accepted before the investigating officials dispatch of the goods as mentioned in the lorry receipts. If subsequently, none of them has denied the transport, the persons concerned with the freight recovered from the consignee on the basis that there was no claim of short delivery by the consignee we do not see how this is relevant. Apar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and other features. 13.The same arguments have been advanced before the Collector. He has said that no specific evidence of error has been pointed out with regard to the quantity and only a general statement was made. He has also said that no evidence has been produced to show that the rate of duty of Rs. 30/- per linear metre was incorrect. As we have noted, details of entries have been pointed out before us in Annexure. Annexure M of the appeal, there are copies of gate passes, which show the assessable value of the fabrics at less than Rs. 30/-. In gate pass No. 104 the values are shown as commercial grade III at Rs. 17.75, grade II at Rs. 22/- and grade I at Rs. 24/- per linear metre. These two lend support to the contention of the appeal. We are of the view that this aspect therefore should be gone into in detail by the Commissioner. 14.Subsequent to issue of the notice, a corrigendum (Annexure E) was issued. This corrigendum proposed recovery of an amount of duty contained in Annexure E. This duty was worked out by taking into account by working out the pro rata fuel and power charges per metric tonne of production based upon the figures contained in the balance-sheet of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
