TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 31-3-1983. 2. I confiscate the seized goods valued at Rs. 1,51,050/-. The party is hereby given an option to redeem the goods confiscated on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 20,000/-. 3. I impose a penalty of Rs. 2.0 Lacs on the party under Rule 173Q of CER, 1944." 2. The aforesaid impugned order was passed in respect of show cause notice C.No. IV-CE(9)/Prev./DCG/29/8342, dated 19-10-1983. Arguing the appeal before us today, the ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a small-scale unit engaged in the manufacture of components of generating sets. It also carry out trading in parts of generating sets. The show cause notice raised a duty demand of over Rs. 3,49,146.40 on the basis that the appellant's cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide loose challan(s)/loose slip(s) reflect the movement of Engine, Alternator, Battery, Silencer, Control Panel, Fuel Tank and Base Frame etc. altogether either to VPG, Delhi or VTC, Bijnor. There is no independent clearance from the Noida unit. All the records as available at Noida/Delhi/Bijnor on 21-4-1983 were seized but no document showing stock or sale of VPG, Noida was found whereas at the stage of Personal Hearing on 24-2-1994 the party provided the figures of sales for the three years in respect of their business at Noida/Bijnor/Delhi as detailed in sub-para 5(b) supra. The party also claimed that they were maintaining proper account books showing stock position as well as figures of sale, but they never produced such document/book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been confirmed on M/s. VTC and not on the present appellant. The order also held the appellant ineligible for exemption on account of clubbing of the clearances of M/s. VTC, M/s. VPG and M/s. VEC. The ld. Counsel for the appellant stressed that the findings in the impugned order and duty demand and penalties were not tenable at all. To begin with, the findings are entirely outside the scope of the allegations made in the show cause notice. It is settled law that an adjudication order cannot go beyond the scope of the show cause notice and make an entirely different case, as has been done in the present case. Further, no notice had been issued to all the parties whose production has been held to be the production of one manufacturer and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants' clearance for 1981-82 has been alleged to be in excess of Rs. 30 lakhs merely for the reason that they had not made available the production and clearance figures of that year. The appellants' contention is that they had submitted the data to the Central Excise authorities. Whatever be the correct facts on that count, production and clearance figures cannot merely be assumed at certain amounts in the absence of any material justifying the fixing of the value of the production and clearance at that amount. The appellants' production for the year 1982-83 has also been worked out by merely multiplying the relevant figures for the first quarter of that financial year. This is also not a permissible or reasonable way of ascertaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
